No because an aggregate can be made of many sources, maybe you restrict your sources to those only you trust, but not every source is correct all the time. So you’re still stuck with needing to fact check.
Yes, the core idea here is that our perceptual system wasn't evolutionarily designed to just scan the world around us and reconstruct it inside our heads. It evolved to keep us in contact with action-relevant properties of the world we're acting in. I.e. we're not just looking for the shapes/objects/textures, we're looking for the things we can action upon ("_affordances_") and that heavily depends on what actions you can perform.
We don't see the chair as a 3D object, we see it as an affordance to sit (along with a wide windowsill or gym ball). The wall is a barrier for an elderly person, but an affordance to the parcour performer. The pole dancer perceives the lamp post very differently from the non-pole dancer. An experienced tennis player sees the ball in mid-air as much bigger than the newbie player. Fatigued hiker perceives the hill as much steeper than full-of-energy hiker. If an athlete is more capable, objects like a baseball or tennis ball, or basketball hoop look bigger.
Gibson's theory on affordances started with his 1979 book "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception". My understanding is that it has some criticisms, but still considered as one of the leading theories in perception studies and is heavily used in the design community.
