I'd just like to point out that most of the things we accept as true, comes second hand from other humans
That's absolutely true. None of us have anything even remotely resembling a true and accurate model of the world around us. Almost everything we hold true is an approximation or an anecdote. You accept as a fact that Polar bears live at the north pole and Penguins live at the South pole, But you only believe that because someone told you. Or, do you think you know what an oak tree is? You only have the vaguest idea! You could study oak trees for decades and not understand them entirely.
What we have, all anyone has, is a working model. The crucial difference is how people build those models. Simplistically you can split peoples model building approaches into Credulous and Sceptical, but there is a world of shading in both.
A Sceptic's model will have approximations and errors, but it's aim is to be robust yet adaptable. The model works, but if any part of it is shown to be wrong, it is taken out and replaced.
The Credulous model also works and is also full of approximations and errors, but the aim of the Credulous model is to preserve the model. New information that contradicts the model is rejected automatically.
The problem with the Credulous model is that it can come into conflict with reality. The beauty of the Sceptical model is that reality always wins.