It seems like we’re saying the same thing. Trust implies that you can afford to outsource your skepticism. Being willing to question whoever you trust is at odds with that.
It’s probably more accurate to say that whenever someone says something, it’s treated as an independent data point, each of which is assigned somewhere between "probably true" and "probably false". The datapoints get updated as more observations about the world come in.
Observations are different than taking someone’s word for it.
That assigned probability is a function of trust in the speaker, prior plausibility, other available information, and the consequences of being wrong in either direction. You can't avoid the trust question by talking about probability.
It’s probably more accurate to say that whenever someone says something, it’s treated as an independent data point, each of which is assigned somewhere between "probably true" and "probably false". The datapoints get updated as more observations about the world come in.
Observations are different than taking someone’s word for it.