To my mind, our whole modern situation keeps returning to the same question, and it confronts each person individually on multiple occasions. That question could be phrased as 'what is your evidence?'
We seem to require 'evidence' for our beliefs, but we expect that evidence be 'objective' - that evidence is Not derived from what we personally know or can do; but comes to us from outside.
Any evidence that comes from our own efforts is supposed to bepotentially delusional - because tainted by our own subjectivity ('wishful thinking'); but somehow external evidence - provided by 'other people' - is somehow immune from their subjectivity...
Somehow, we don't notice that the problem of subjectivity has not been eliminated by outsourcing judgment; and neither have constraints as the need for honesty and ability.
'Evidence' just-is made by people, and if the people who supply 'evidence' are incompetent or dishonest, then we would be (we are) stupid to take any notice.
Who can we trust to provide us with external evidence that is strong enough to over-ride our own, personally-derived knowledge?
Simply asking the question reveals that we are - all the time - implicitly trusting people whom we would not explicitly trust; we believe people that we do not know, and do not know anything about - yet we trust and believe them more than our own intuition, common sense and personal experience...
It looks as if our world has convinced us only to believe what others tell us, and not even to allow us to choose who the 'others' might be.
Our world tells us that we must Not think for our-selves (because that is merely subjective, delusional, wishful thinking) but Must believe Other People (whose thinking is, somehow, Not subjective, delusional wishful thinking when they are telling us what to believe!); and it defines what kinds of people we must believe.
Our only allowed choice is among the approved people and groups.
The way out of this hall-of-mirrors is fully, and consciously, to acknowledge that all evidence ultimately depends upon our-selves - on who we chose to trust.
We can either make this decision for ourselves - or allow the decision to be made for us, by... well, by whoever happens to be dominant in our environment.
And that is what keeps people compliant, and what stops people thinking for (and from) them-selves - fear of whoever happens to be dominant.
To think for oneself entails disbelieving and defying whoever-is-dominant. And that is always a risk; one way or another.
One might suppose that 'thinking is free' - that what is 'inside our heads' is private and safe - yet that is not how our minds work. In practice we all believe (we 'know') that our thinking is not private, that other-people (including whoever-is-dominant) know what we are thinking...
Even though modern materialism denies that this 'mind-reading' is really possible; something in us knows that thoughts make a difference; and we are therefore afraid to have defiant and disobedient thoughts.
We fear that our disbelieving and defying thoughts may be used as evidence against us... And we are right!
Thus we (guiltily) try to control our own thinking - as well as behaviour.
And thus we are captured by the system - afraid even to acknowledge our situation, and the absurdity - the incoherence - of what goes on every-day as 'normal'!
But the way-out is - and we know this too! - perfectly simple. Simple but risky.
Therefore it is cowardice that is the problem, not ignorance, nor weakness.
Because thought is Not private, thought Is effectual...
Therefore Thinking Makes A Difference.
And - given that we could think for-ourselves, if we chose - that is the most defiant and disobedient 'thought' of all...