When I was in college/university, the chairman of the philosophy dept. was Anthony C. 'Tony' Genova. He was a brilliant man, and helpful & personable. He could discuss almost any facet of philosophical thought and ended his career as an emeritus professor at the Univ. of Kansas. It was always a problem when a 2 hour graduate seminar class ended, as Genova would be so wound up in trains of thought that he found it hard to just stop.... everything led to something else!

We graduate students sometimes referred to ourselves as "Genova's Witnesses" (though never within his hearing)...kinda cute, hmm?
   But the point was NOT that he had some 'truth' that we subscribed to, but rather that he had an attitude and an understanding of issues that made his scholarship well worth emulating.

My basic approach to knowledge is that, IF one learns 'how' to think, evaluate and to process data & ideas, one will navigate the churning, complex seas of science, religion, opinion, theory and propaganda in a fairly sensible way.

Learning 'how to think' won't necessarily give a person all the answers and it certainly won't 'prove' any one theory over another, but it WILL help avoid the most awkward pitfalls and silliness one encounters. Contrary to what 'some' seem to accept, there are basic rules for evaluating rhetoric, logic, scientific claims and metaphysical concepts.... much like mathematics does in other areas.
The problem? There are no simple answers that would fit on a poster on the wall... and much of the human race seems to be willing to settle for "poster philosophy".