To trust or not to trust
It is interesting to see that realpolitik minds have found ways of abusing the concept of Scientific Skepticism, too, for its realpolitik usage, where it abruptly and irrationally demands of the people to give-up it's believing habits even to what is sensibly and logically derived.
Technically, you should not be trusting anyone. To trust, you must know the truth. You can and you must trust only the truth. To know the truth, you need information - truthful or untruthful whatever. You then need to put your own brain on an analysis work to figure out the truth hidden in those contradictory, conflicting information. Any other kind or method you are applying by any means to repose your trust in anyone or anything is actually your Belief. You are already a piece of Pawns of political power games if are living by anything like Belief, which you are confusing away as your Trust.
To not to belief is very similar to being a Skeptic. Skepticism is the first step to becoming Scientific. Science is the opposite of Realpolitik.
In the Science , in the end you need to trust someone, or something. But Science says that 'You can trust only the truth.' Towards that, Science demands of you to become critical in your thought process. You are required to analyse many different informations in order to derive the truth by yourself.
In the world of Information Analysis, Skepticism is the substitution word for being objective and being dispassionate. Infact each of us is burdened to derive the truth by ourselves. But a psychological truth above all of these is that humans are designed to not to survive if they lose all their trust and belief. Belief gives a direction to our existence. Hence we require a belief. The purpose of science is to give us truthful,verifiable, robustly proven beliefs. It is only to say that Skepticism is the first step to achieve just an opposite end result, the trust-able belief.