I mean, there is no simple process to establish truth. It can be given on a silver platter, and still not accepted, or internalized. More often it's the struggle between superfluous or conflicting information, and one must tease the two apart, often making incorrect inferences along the way, but hopefully, in time, establishing a broader web of support that mutually confirms itself. Other times, it's a struggle to find the information that is out there, gleaming and true, but difficult to access: this is the case whether something is buried in academic journals, libraries, etc., or when some basic input (formatting, support, volunteering) is required, such as on Stack. Of these two examples, of course, you're far less likely to get an accurate and in-depth explanation from the latter, if any at all; but neither can you let down your critical-reading guard around academic papers.
In any case, if one finds a response confusing, they are welcome to ask again -- or to rephrase their question in a way that better articulates what confusion they are having. If they aren't capable of that -- unfortunately, there is a certain minimum competency required to learn; hopefully one establishes this early in life, but outside of school, most people aren't interested in hand-holding. Thus it takes a certain amount of confidence to speak up, and a certain amount of insight, of introspection, to express what exactly it is that one is after. In other words: the skill of learning itself. A skill which our schools oh so often actively stifle, so if one finds themselves in this situation -- my sympathies, but wrongs done unto you can still be righted, it can still be learned; find someone willing to mentor you in a subject, perhaps, and be open to new experiences.
Tim