>Do you know what good information looks like, or are you going to be fed crap from a circle-jerk of sources which all repeat the same lies? This is a bootstrapping problem, ultimately: How do you know where to get the first info you use to tell crap from good information?

The way you do it for everything else you learn. Start small, explore the area, verify yourself what you can, talk to people and read from various sources.

>Experts largely agree with each other in most mature fields.

When it gets away from the core mechanics of some field, that agreement is based on some fundumental premises that not necesarrily you or everybody shares with them. A lot of that is also based on the prevalent paradigms and ideologies of a time -- phrenology was once accepted by "experts", as were electro-shocks for gay people. And don't get me started on economic "experts".

Basically anything that moves from an hard scientific explanation to a value judgement is suspect and should be scrutinized, whether experts agree to it or not.

I'd only accept a consensus of lots of independent experts with no state or corporate funding, but those are very hard to find (if at all possible).

>How do you know Lustig isn't bogus and ego-driven?

I don't. Hence I advocate for people to "make up your mind on your own based on information" -- not just trust Lustig or "the expert consensus".