Hume vs. Reid or Hume & Reid?

On to the next lecture on Philosophy that I have listened to on Coursera, it discusses 'testimony' and the seeming debate between Hume and Reid regarding the topic. I again, wrote down my thoughts, as follow:

"While Reid is arguing the natural inclination of man to trust and be honest more than not, as evidenced by the natural state observed in children, Hume's argument, while on its face, may seem to, in part or full, disagree with Reid, in reality, is in regard to how man ought to treat testimony. Hume is not saying that man is necessarily dishonest or skeptical, but that, as time goes on, men find reason to be dishonest or skeptical.
This can be seen with children as well, especially as they begin to form extra-familial ties and as they gain experience within their social structures. As they reach ages in which they begin to be able to reason and rationalize, and anticipate the results of scenarios, they may begin to engage in skepticism and dishonesty for a variety of reasons.
Fear is often the primary motivator for children to go against their precept for honestly and trust. Fear that the truth or a piece of information handed them may result in negative consequence. For instance, a child may decide to lie out of fear that the truth will upset a figure they look up to or have reason to be intimidated by. A child may decide not to believe something they are told for fear that it would unravel other notions they hold true, skepticism as a result of cognitive dissonance.

So while Reid is very much justified in his assertion that man is 'hardwired' to trust and be honest, Humes is not incorrect in his assertion that man grows to become dishonest and that he grows to require evidence of the reliability of information.

As we grow, we add more and more reasons to our inclinations to be skeptical and/or dishonest. Greed, power, attention, bias, distaste, et cetera, all feed into these 'learned' actions of dishonesty and distrust.

It is my feeling that, in truth, Hume and Reid's arguments can, overall, be easily reconciled if we assume that one is regarding the natural state of man's inclination regarding honesty and trust while the other is regarding the result of experience and reason and rationale and how we SHOULD treat information we are offered. Reid shows us that we are naturally inclined to be honest and trustworthy while Hume warns us that man, over time, may become untrustworthy and so we should build a healthy amount of skepticism to information given and weigh evidence, both of the information and the source of the information, to determine whether it is reasonable to believe or disbelieve the source and, thus, the information. "