Here's an early version 0.3 of something that has been brewing in this mind for a while.
This is a very rough version which might need some adjustments in language and terms and scripture to back it.
I'm posting it temporarily in this thread because, well, why not, it seemed quite suitable.
Hoping for discussion and collaboration.
Claim Evaluation: A Step-by-Step Thinking Process
A method for evaluating any claim without self-deception, groupthink, or noise.
Step 1: Clearly understand the claim
- Pause and examine carefully.
- Restate it simply, neutrally, without exaggeration.
- Ensure you clearly understand each word—look up definitions if uncertain.
- Don’t assume everyone means the same thing by the same word—check explicitly for ambiguity or vagueness.
- Separate known facts from assumptions, emotional language, and judgments.
→ Beware of jumping to conclusions.
→ Avoid distorting the claim to match your preconceptions.
Step 2: Check initial credibility (quick assessment)
- Who made the claim?
- Do they have genuine expertise or just influence/popularity?
- Are they known to be reliable, neutral, or biased?
- What kind of evidence was initially offered?
- Is it factual, logical, anecdotal, emotional, or hearsay?
- Does your intuition suggest deeper investigation is warranted?
- Is something subtly signaling credibility, importance, or warning?
- Does it resonate (or clash) with your extensive prior experience or knowledge?
- Use intuition as a rapid early-warning system, prompting deeper analysis—not as a final verdict.
→ Good intuition can be a powerful signal, helping you prioritize where to dig deeper.
→ But intuition must be followed by deliberate verification.
Step 3: Decide if the claim matters enough to pursue
- Does the claim affect something important: decisions, beliefs, society, relationships?
- Would sharing it contribute positively, negatively, or neutrally to understanding or action?
- If false, would it have harmful effects?
→ Only meaningful claims deserve careful investigation.
Step 4: Do I currently believe the claim?
- Yes / No / Unsure
→ Pause: Check if your instinctive response might be driven by identity, ideology, or emotions.
Step 5: Critically evaluate evidence (why believe or reject?)
If you believe the claim:
- What exactly supports this belief?
- Is evidence direct, recent, and robust?
- Could evidence be biased, incomplete, or misleading?
If you reject the claim:
- Are you rejecting due to insufficient evidence?
- Or is rejection because the claim threatens your beliefs?
→ Ensure your position is evidence-based, not preference-based.
Step 6: Examine your biases (confirmation bias check)
- Would you still believe it if stated by someone you oppose?
- Would you dismiss it if it were said by someone you usually trust?
- Does believing this claim reinforce your existing worldview or identity?
- Are you emotionally or socially invested in the claim’s truth or falsehood?
Confirmation bias:
The tendency to favor information supporting your current beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence. It misleads even highly intelligent thinkers, creating an illusion of reasoned thought.
→ Awareness of bias does not eliminate it, but weakens its influence.
Step 7: Verify independently
-
Can the claim be independently confirmed from unbiased, unrelated sources?
-
Is it supported by verifiable data, evidence, or direct observation?
-
Explicitly ask: Is this evidence demonstrating a genuine cause-effect relationship, or just an indirect association or coincidence?
-
Just because two things are linked (correlation) doesn't neccesarily mean one causes the other (causation).
-
Correlation means two things happen together, but doesn’t prove one directly causes or influences the other.
-
Causation means one factor directly produces or changes the other—proven through rigorous testing or controlled experiments.Always clarify precisely what the evidence truly proves to avoid reaching false conclusions.
-
-
Does the claim hold up under skeptical analysis and rigorous scrutiny?
- Actively look for weaknesses or alternative explanations.
- Challenge the evidence deliberately, rather than simply accepting it at face value.
→ Always test claims carefully, especially those that rely on implied relationships or associations.
Step 8: Decide responsibly: share, act, or hold?
Before sharing or acting on a claim, consider:
- Is it verified to a reasonable level?
- Is sharing it constructive, helpful, or socially responsible?
- Could spreading unverified claims cause real harm or confusion?
- Are you tempted to share mainly because it supports your "side" or identity?
If you intentionally overlook evidence because it doesn't support your side, you risk being caught off-guard later—such as in a legal argument, public debate, or critical decision. Ignored facts don't vanish; opponents or critics might find them and use them against you.
- Would you accept the opposing side using similar questionable evidence or claims?
Ethical caution:
Spreading falsehoods or uncertain information—no matter the intention—harms credibility and trust in the long term.
People learn behaviors by example. Don’t teach others to disregard truth.
→ When in doubt, pause or explicitly state uncertainty.
→ Integrity builds trust; trust builds influence.