cyb - cyberpunk

You should definitely read more epistemology. There have been differing opinions on the topic throughout the ages.
Some claim that nothing can be known at all (not even this), or that there's no objective reality to know (but that's just saying you can only ever experience a subjective one).
Sciences generally assume that there is an objective reality, and that the scientific method is likely helping us get better guesses at what it is.
There are also many who claim to know objective reality - they seem to have some sort of dogma or axiom in mind, or be confident in their legendary intelligence.

My stance on the topic:

Your question implies that technology can magically fix fundamental human flaw. Of all things, it will be exploited by the resourceful and will just make it worse.
There are acquaintances who provide me with their first hand experiences around some recent events. Those are usually opposite of what government says. In other cases, rely on amount of data collected and use your own logic and discernment.

Another question for OP: does it really matter for your life and safety who downed that plane? Do you really need to know details of war half across the globe?

>>20118
No, oscillation is the key; https://ensorcel.org/metamodernism-a-primer/

>>20123
>Sciences generally assume that there is an objective reality, and that the scientific method is likely helping us get better guesses at what it is.

Alternatively, science is actively generating the 'objective reality' (as the collection of facts about 'reality' obtained through the methods of science). By doing so, it is raising the cost of access to the epistemic conditions by which one 'verifies reality'. In this sense, the ontology of science could be understood as a Plutocratic metaphysics.

I don't think we can "objectively" determine reality but we can find common agreements between groups of people about reality.

I think the truth lies in the whole and not the essence. but we can only ever have a part of that whole. kind of unfortunate, huh?

So I guess my strategy is to pay attention to all the media you can, or at least the stuff you wouldn't normally be exposed to (stuff you might think is crazy but a lot of others listen to, for instance) with a good theoretical understanding.

No I don't think so. There is just reliable information and unreliable information. Key word there is the reliable part though, doesn't necessarily mean its objectively true just that it serves you and can be relied upon.