Let me mention an example of holding a firm position on something where there is a lot of exponential knowledge exploding, but not having time to keep up with the knowledge:
Manmade climate change.
My position is not that it exists or doesn't exist. My position is that the government well-paid experts and scientists and propagandists who have tried to sell massive government controls to people have been caught lying over and over. And their predictions keep crapping out. I'm certainly not going to invest a lot of my own time and energy reading materials--even materials for lay people--based on their work. (In fact, I used to look at this stuff, but then I found out the monkey-shines and stopped.)
Besides, there are plenty of scientists of good repute who dispute their claims.
So I don't trust liars who have conflicts of interest to boot. I don't claim to be an expert on climate science. What little interest I did have in it evaporated when I discovered what a dirty, morally flawed field it is in gathering and presenting evidence.
I prefer to give this issue some time and wait until scientists of reasonable integrity appear. The scare tactics of proven liars don't affect me.
As to my own beliefs on manmade climate change, I can't appeal to hard science. But I do have a rule of thumb that gives me a strong bias. I admit this is not science so there is a small margin for error.
I don't believe much of what liars say. And proven liars are the most vocal ones who constantly claim manmade climate change is a danger. I don't believe them.
That's a way to do it as a lay person when there are too many piles of technical data to look at and everybody is yelling for more and more government money and power.
You simply look at the moral character of the scientists who do the experiments and measurements and judge them by their actions. At least you will be able to conclude that what they tell to the public is flawed and misleading.