How Do We Know What We Know? Consciousness, Critical Thinking and the Search for Truth
AI-generated illustration.
We spend much of our lives forming opinions about the world. But how often do we stop to examine how those opinions were formed, what influenced them, and whether we have considered everything we might be overlooking?
Think about how many subjects we have opinions about.
Politics. Religion. History. Science. Economics. Medicine. Psychology. Education. Consciousness. The nature of reality.
We hear information, read articles, watch documentaries, listen to experts and form conclusions. Sometimes we investigate a subject ourselves. More often, we depend on other people to help us understand it.
But here is an interesting question:
How much of what we believe have we actually had the opportunity to investigate independently?
Consider a subject you feel strongly about. How much do you know about its history? Have you examined the original evidence? Have you considered the strongest arguments against your position? Do you understand the limitations of the research? Could your own experiences, identity or emotions be influencing how you interpret the information?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question:
What would it take to change your mind?
This is where the philosophical study of knowledge becomes relevant.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge: what it means to know something, how we acquire knowledge, what justifies our beliefs and where the limits of our understanding might lie.
But this investigation goes beyond academic philosophy.
It explores how our relationship with knowledge connects to consciousness, self-awareness, independent thinking and personal development.
At Get Out Rat Race, we are interested in more than what people believe. We want to understand how they arrive at those beliefs, what influences their interpretation of reality and whether a wider perspective might bring us closer to truth and human flourishing.
The central idea is simple:
We should be confident where the evidence is strong, uncertain where the evidence is incomplete, and humble enough to reconsider our position when new understanding emerges.
In this article
1. The Limits of What We Know
AI-generated illustration.
Almost every important subject is more complicated than it first appears.
A historical event may involve political, economic, cultural, religious and geographical influences. A scientific question may involve years of research, specialist knowledge and competing interpretations. A political decision may have consequences that are not immediately visible.
Yet we often form opinions after encountering only a small part of the available information.
Why?
Because none of us has unlimited time, expertise or access to information.
We cannot independently investigate every historical event, scientific paper, political decision or philosophical argument. We depend on researchers, journalists, academics, institutions, specialists and other people to help us understand the world.
This is not a weakness. It is a necessary part of living in a complex society.
The problem begins when we forget how much of our understanding depends on information and interpretations supplied by others.
Even experts have limitations
Imagine a historian who has spent 40 years studying a particular period.
Their knowledge may be exceptional. They may understand the original documents, political relationships and historical debates better than almost anyone else.
But does that mean they understand every economic, psychological, genetic, geographical and cultural factor that influenced those events?
Not necessarily.
A scientist may have exceptional expertise in a specialist field without being qualified to settle every philosophical question connected to that field.
An economist may understand financial systems but have limited knowledge of the psychological or cultural factors influencing human behaviour.
Expertise is essential. But expertise is not omniscience.
This distinction matters because we sometimes treat expert opinion as though it represents complete knowledge rather than informed understanding within a particular area of expertise.
The opposite mistake is equally dangerous: assuming that because experts have limitations, their knowledge can simply be dismissed.
Neither position is intellectually sound.
We should value specialist knowledge while recognising that specialists, like everyone else, work within the boundaries of their evidence, methods and expertise.
What is epistemological humility?
Epistemological humility means recognising that our knowledge is partial, our interpretations can be mistaken and our confidence should be proportionate to the quality of the evidence.
It does not mean that truth is unknowable.
It does not mean every opinion is equally valid.
And it does not mean we should avoid making judgements.
It means understanding the difference between what we know, what we believe, what we infer and what we do not yet understand.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's discussion of epistemology explores the relationship between knowledge, belief, truth and justification.
One important philosophical issue is that simply holding a true belief does not necessarily mean that we know something. How the belief was formed and whether it is appropriately supported also matter.
This gives us an important starting point.
Instead of asking only whether a conclusion is right or wrong, we should also examine how we arrived at it.
Key takeaway: The objective is not to know everything. It is to develop a more honest relationship with what we know, what we do not know and how confident we should be.
2. Why We Need More Than One Lens: Lower and Higher Consciousness
AI-generated illustration.
If our knowledge is limited, how should we respond?
We can become defensive, emotionally attached to our existing beliefs and unwilling to consider perspectives that challenge us.
Or we can become more curious, reflective and willing to investigate beyond our existing understanding.
This is where the Get Out Rat Race lower-consciousness and higher-consciousness lenses come into the discussion.
These are philosophical frameworks for examining patterns of thought.
They are not labels for fixed types of people, nor are they political, religious or cultural categories.
Every person can demonstrate both patterns depending on the subject, circumstances, emotions and information available.
The lower-consciousness lens
The lower-consciousness lens represents a more restricted or defensive way of interpreting reality.
It may involve:
Fear and insecurity.
Ego and defensiveness.
Tribal identity.
Confirmation bias.
Blame and resentment.
Rigidity.
A need to be right.
Us-versus-them thinking.
When we approach a subject through this lens, we may become more concerned with protecting our existing position than understanding the evidence.
We might dismiss information because it challenges our identity.
We might interpret disagreement as hostility.
We might focus on evidence that confirms what we already believe while ignoring information that complicates our position.
This does not necessarily mean our conclusion is wrong.
A person could hold a perfectly reasonable belief while arriving at it through defensive or incomplete reasoning.
The important question is how the conclusion was reached.
The higher-consciousness lens
The higher-consciousness lens represents a more expansive and reflective way of interpreting reality.
It encourages:
Curiosity and openness.
Intellectual humility.
Empathy.
Critical thinking.
Self-awareness.
Perspective-taking.
Willingness to revise beliefs.
Recognition of shared humanity.
Instead of asking how we can defend our existing position, we ask what else we might need to understand.
Instead of immediately dismissing an opposing argument, we examine its strongest form.
Instead of assuming that our interpretation represents the complete picture, we consider what may be missing.
This does not mean becoming less critical.
In fact, it requires us to become more discerning.
Higher consciousness does not mean being less critical. It means being more discerning.
A distinction worth making
The language of lower and higher consciousness in this article is a conceptual framework developed for reflection and discussion.
It should not be confused with a scientifically established scale that measures people's consciousness or ranks them according to intellectual or moral superiority.
The framework is about the quality and process of thinking, not assigning people a permanent status.
A person can be open-minded about religion but defensive about politics.
Someone can be intellectually curious about science while being unwilling to reconsider their beliefs about history.
Someone can advocate tolerance while displaying contempt towards people who disagree with them.
The opportunity is to become more aware of these patterns wherever they appear.
Key takeaway: The two lenses are tools for examining how we interpret information. They are not identities to impose on other people.
3. Applying the Two Lenses: What Does the Difference Look Like?
AI-generated illustration.
Let's consider a practical example.
Imagine someone believes that a particular institution is corrupt.
That belief may be justified. There may be documented evidence of misconduct, financial irregularities or abuse of power.
But how does the person approach the claim?
A lower-consciousness response
"They're all corrupt. Everything they tell us is a lie. Anyone who disagrees is part of the problem."
What is happening here?
The person is generalising from a particular concern to an entire institution or group.
They may be assuming motives without evidence.
They are treating disagreement as evidence of complicity.
They are no longer simply investigating whether corruption occurred. They are defending a wider belief system.
A higher-consciousness response
"What evidence demonstrates corruption? Which individuals are responsible? What alternative explanations exist? What evidence might challenge my interpretation? How do we establish accountability?"
Notice something important.
The higher-consciousness approach could still conclude that corruption occurred.
It could reach exactly the same conclusion as the first person.
The difference is how the conclusion was reached, how confidently it is held, whether the evidence is proportionate to the claim and whether the person remains open to further information.
This is why the framework should examine reasoning rather than predetermine conclusions.
Why this matters in everyday life
Consider how often we encounter similar situations.
Someone criticises a political party. We may immediately defend the party we support.
Someone challenges our religion. We may interpret the question as an attack rather than an opportunity to examine an argument.
Someone questions a scientific conclusion. We may either dismiss them as ignorant or accept their alternative explanation without examining the evidence.
Someone disagrees with our understanding of history. We may focus on their identity instead of assessing the quality of their argument.
The opportunity is to create a space between encountering an argument and reacting to it.
That space allows us to ask better questions.
Key takeaway: A more reflective approach does not guarantee that we will reach a different conclusion. It improves the process through which we reach and evaluate that conclusion.
4. The Higher Lens Must Examine Itself
AI-generated illustration.
There is a potential problem with any framework that distinguishes between more restricted and more expansive ways of thinking.
What happens when someone begins to believe they are one of the people who think at a higher level?
The framework itself can become another source of ego.
Someone might describe themselves as open-minded while dismissing everyone who disagrees with them.
Someone might advocate compassion while showing contempt towards people with different views.
Someone might believe they are intellectually superior because they question mainstream narratives.
Someone might consider themselves enlightened because they reject conventional beliefs.
These behaviours can reproduce the very patterns the framework is intended to challenge.
The danger of intellectual superiority
It is possible to become attached to the identity of being someone who sees through things.
But questioning accepted ideas does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable.
Rejecting mainstream explanations does not automatically make an alternative explanation correct.
Being sceptical of institutions does not mean every criticism of those institutions is justified.
Equally, accepting an established explanation without examining its evidence can also become a form of intellectual laziness.
The question is not whether an idea is mainstream or unconventional.
The question is how well it is supported.
Questions for self-reflection
Before describing our own thinking as open-minded, we should ask:
Am I genuinely open to being wrong?
Am I applying the same standards to my own beliefs as I apply to others?
Am I confusing my interpretation with objective reality?
Am I dismissing somebody because of their identity, or because of the quality of their argument?
Am I seeking understanding, or simply confirmation?
Would I accept this evidence if it supported a conclusion I disliked?
These questions are uncomfortable because they turn the investigation back towards ourselves.
But that is precisely the point.
We cannot develop intellectual independence if we are unwilling to examine our own thinking.
Key takeaway: The higher-consciousness lens must remain open to criticism, including criticism of the framework itself.
5. Intellectual Humility Does Not Mean All Views Are Equal
AI-generated illustration.
One of the most important distinctions in this entire discussion is the difference between open-mindedness and false balance.
Being willing to consider different perspectives does not mean treating every claim as equally credible.
For example, imagine a scientific question where extensive research has produced a well-established consensus.
An alternative theory may exist, but if it has little supporting evidence and has not survived independent testing, it should not automatically receive equal weight.
Intellectual humility does not require us to pretend that the evidence is evenly divided when it is not.
What should we examine when evaluating a claim?
A careful assessment should consider several factors.
1. The quality of the evidence
Is the claim supported by reliable information, or is it based on speculation, anecdotes or assumptions?
2. The quantity and relevance of the evidence
Is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion? Does the evidence actually relate to the claim being made?
3. Independent replication
Have other researchers been able to reproduce the findings?
4. Research methods and limitations
How was the evidence collected? What assumptions were made? What limitations might influence the result?
5. Conflicts of interest
Are there financial, political, institutional or personal incentives that might influence the research or its interpretation?
6. Alternative explanations
Could the same evidence be explained in another way?
7. The strength of the consensus
Is there a well-established consensus, or is the subject still developing?
8. Whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence
Does the evidence actually demonstrate the claim, or is the conclusion stronger than the research allows?
Neither blind faith nor automatic suspicion
Institutions can have incentives, blind spots and conflicts of interest.
Those possibilities deserve scrutiny.
But the possibility of institutional bias or capture is not, by itself, evidence that it has occurred.
Equally, a well-established scientific consensus should generally carry more weight than an unsupported alternative theory.
The higher-consciousness approach is neither blind faith nor automatic suspicion.
It is proportionate confidence based on the available evidence.
What does independent research look like?
A useful distinction is between:
An established fact supported by strong evidence.
An empirical finding produced by a particular study or method.
An interpretation of what the evidence means.
A philosophical or moral judgement about what should happen.
A speculation or prediction that has not yet been established.
These categories are not interchangeable.
For example, evidence may establish that a particular policy had a measurable economic effect. Interpreting why that effect occurred may involve further analysis. Deciding whether the policy was morally justified is a separate question.
Being clear about these distinctions makes our thinking more accurate.
Key takeaway: Intellectual humility is not the absence of judgement. It is the discipline of making judgements in proportion to the strength of the evidence.
6. Applying the Framework Across Different Subjects
AI-generated illustration.
The value of this framework is that it can be applied to almost any subject.
The topic changes, but the opportunity for self-reflection remains.
Instead of simply asking what position we should adopt, we examine what influences our interpretation and what a wider perspective might reveal.
Immigration
Lower-lens question: Who is threatening our way of life?
Higher-lens question: What are the genuine challenges, interests and human experiences involved?
This allows us to consider border management, economic pressures, public services, national identity, historical relationships and the experiences of migrants without reducing the entire debate to competing identities.
Religion
Lower-lens question: Why is my belief system right and theirs wrong?
Higher-lens question: What can different traditions teach us about existence, morality and human experience?
This does not require abandoning religious beliefs. It encourages us to understand different traditions, examine philosophical arguments and distinguish personal faith from claims that can be independently investigated.
Politics
Lower-lens question: Which side should I support?
Higher-lens question: What principles, evidence and outcomes should guide political judgement?
Rather than automatically defending a party or political identity, we examine policies, consequences, competing arguments and the standards we apply to those in power.
Wealth
Lower-lens question: Who has more than me?
Higher-lens question: How can prosperity be created while considering fairness and human flourishing?
This moves the discussion beyond envy or admiration and towards the economic, social and ethical conditions that allow people and communities to flourish.
History
Lower-lens question: Who were the good guys and bad guys?
Higher-lens question: What conditions, motivations and consequences shaped events?
Historical investigation becomes more meaningful when we examine context, competing interests, evidence and the experiences of people affected by events.
Science
Lower-lens question: Which expert should I believe?
Higher-lens question: How strong is the evidence, what remains uncertain, and how does knowledge develop?
This encourages respect for expertise while recognising that scientific understanding develops through testing, criticism and revision.
Personal development
Lower-lens question: Why isn't my life where I want it to be?
Higher-lens question: What assumptions, habits and circumstances are shaping my experience?
This brings the framework back to our own lives.
We begin to examine how our beliefs about ourselves, our capabilities and the world influence the choices we make.
The purpose is not simply to teach someone about immigration, religion, politics or science.
It is to help them become more conscious of how they approach those subjects.
Key takeaway: Independent thinking is not limited to one area of knowledge. It is a way of approaching the world that can be developed across different parts of life.
7. A Three-Layer Model for Get Out Rat Race
AI-generated illustration.
The framework can be organised into three connected layers.
Together, they create a bridge between how we know, how we think and how we live.
Layer 1 — Epistemological Awareness
Recognise the limitations of what we know, how we know it and how much we depend on other people to understand the world.
Learn to distinguish:
Evidence from interpretation.
Knowledge from assumption.
Fact from speculation.
Justified confidence from certainty.
This layer establishes a more honest relationship with knowledge.
Layer 2 — Consciousness and Perspective
Examine how fear, ego, identity, curiosity, empathy and intellectual humility influence the way we interpret information and experience.
Use the lower- and higher-consciousness lenses as tools for reflection rather than labels to impose on other people.
This layer develops greater awareness of our own thought processes and the perspectives of others.
Layer 3 — Human Flourishing
Use greater awareness and understanding to make better decisions, develop ourselves, build healthier relationships and contribute towards a better society.
The ultimate question becomes:
Does this way of thinking and acting help human beings flourish?
This connects intellectual development to something larger than simply acquiring more information.
The purpose of knowledge is not just to accumulate facts.
It is also to improve how we understand ourselves, relate to other people and participate in the world.
The complete progression
Recognise what you don't know → Understand how you think → Expand how you see the world → Apply that understanding to how you live.
This is where epistemology, consciousness and personal development come together within the Get Out Rat Race philosophy.
Key takeaway: Knowing more is valuable, but becoming more conscious of how we use what we know is equally important.
8. A Practical Method for Examining Any Subject
AI-generated illustration.
Understanding these ideas is one thing. Applying them consistently is another.
The following method can be used when researching an article, watching a documentary, listening to a debate, discussing a controversial subject or examining a personal belief.
It provides a repeatable structure for independent thinking.
Step 1 — What is being claimed?
Identify the actual claim.
Separate the original statement from commentary, paraphrase and interpretation.
Ask exactly what someone is arguing.
Avoid responding to a simplified version of their position.
Step 2 — What is the evidence?
Find the original sources wherever possible.
Ask what the evidence demonstrates and what it does not demonstrate.
Look at the quality of the research, the methods used and the limitations acknowledged by the authors.
Step 3 — What might the lower-consciousness lens reveal?
Look for possible influences such as:
Fear.
Insecurity.
Tribal loyalty.
Ego.
Confirmation bias.
Resentment.
Defensiveness.
A need for certainty.
Do not assume these are present simply because you disagree with someone. Investigate whether they are actually influencing the argument.
Step 4 — What might the higher-consciousness lens reveal?
Consider:
Curiosity.
Empathy.
Alternative experiences.
Historical and social context.
Systems thinking.
Intellectual humility.
The possibility that several factors are operating simultaneously.
Ask what you might be overlooking.
Step 5 — What are the strongest counterarguments?
Represent opposing positions fairly.
Do not select only weak or convenient examples.
If you cannot explain the strongest version of an opposing argument, you may not yet understand the debate sufficiently.
Step 6 — What remains uncertain?
Identify:
Missing information.
Methodological limitations.
Competing explanations.
Unresolved questions.
Areas where further research is required.
Uncertainty should be made visible rather than hidden to make an argument appear stronger.
Step 7 — What would change my mind?
This is one of the most revealing questions.
Identify the evidence or argument that would cause you to reconsider your position.
Apply the same standard to beliefs you strongly support as those you strongly oppose.
If no conceivable evidence could change your mind, ask whether you are investigating a claim or protecting an identity.
Step 8 — What is the most integrated understanding?
Develop the most complete view the available evidence permits.
Bring together the strongest evidence, alternative explanations, historical context and competing perspectives.
Do not pretend uncertainty has disappeared.
Step 9 — What does this mean for human flourishing?
Finally, consider the consequences of both the conclusion and the way it is acted upon.
How might it affect:
Individuals?
Families?
Communities?
Institutions?
Society more broadly?
Does the way we think and act help people develop their potential and live more meaningful lives?
Make this a habit
You do not need to use all nine questions every time you encounter a new piece of information.
But the more regularly you practise this approach, the more naturally you may begin to question assumptions, recognise uncertainty and examine your own reasoning.
It can become a personal discipline.
Key takeaway: Independent thinking is a practice. It develops through repeated questioning, evidence evaluation, self-reflection and a willingness to revise our understanding.
9. The Connection to Self-Actualisation
AI-generated illustration.
There is a deeper connection between this framework and the central philosophy of Get Out Rat Race.
Self-actualisation is not simply about acquiring more information, achieving external success or accumulating possessions.
It also involves developing the awareness to understand ourselves, question assumptions, appreciate other perspectives and make more conscious choices.
Consider how much of our behaviour is influenced by beliefs we have never properly examined.
We may believe we are not capable of starting a business because of assumptions about our abilities.
We may hold political or cultural opinions that have been inherited rather than independently examined.
We may judge other people through experiences that have shaped our understanding without recognising their influence.
We may follow expectations about success without asking whether they reflect what we actually value.
The ability to question these assumptions creates opportunities for personal development.
Becoming more conscious of the life we are creating
The more we understand how our beliefs influence our decisions, the more opportunity we have to make intentional choices.
This does not mean every limitation is simply a mindset problem. Real circumstances, financial conditions, responsibilities and external barriers matter.
But becoming more aware of our assumptions can help us distinguish between genuine limitations and beliefs that deserve to be questioned.
This is where intellectual independence becomes part of self-actualisation.
We are not simply trying to become people who know more.
We are trying to become people who understand themselves better, think more independently and use that understanding to live more meaningful lives.
The guiding philosophy
Get Out Rat Race should not simply tell people what to think.
It should help people become more conscious of how they think.
The aim is not to replace one rigid worldview with another, or to suggest that every question has no answer.
It is to encourage a more careful, expansive and self-aware relationship with knowledge.
We should be confident where the evidence is strong, uncertain where the evidence is incomplete, and humble enough to reconsider our position when new understanding emerges.
We do not just explore what people believe.
We explore how they arrive at those beliefs, what influences their understanding, what they might be overlooking, and how a more expansive perspective could bring us closer to truth and human flourishing.
Become Who You Were Born To Be.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is epistemology?
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It examines what knowledge is, how we acquire it, what justifies our beliefs and what the limits of knowing may be.
2. What is epistemological humility?
Epistemological humility means recognising that our knowledge is incomplete, our interpretations can be mistaken and our confidence should reflect the strength of the evidence. It does not mean that truth is unknowable or that every opinion is equally valid.
3. What is the difference between lower and higher consciousness?
In this Get Out Rat Race framework, the lower-consciousness lens describes more defensive or restricted patterns of interpretation, while the higher-consciousness lens describes more expansive and reflective patterns involving curiosity, empathy, critical thinking and intellectual humility. They are tools for reflection, not scientific measurements or permanent labels for people.
4. Does higher consciousness mean being more intelligent?
Not necessarily. The framework is not a ranking of intelligence. It concerns how we approach information, uncertainty, disagreement and our own beliefs.
5. What is intellectual humility?
Intellectual humility involves recognising the limits of one's own knowledge and being willing to consider the possibility of being mistaken. It does not require abandoning strongly supported conclusions.
6. Does critical thinking mean questioning everything?
Critical thinking means evaluating claims according to their evidence, reasoning and context. It does not mean treating every claim as equally plausible or automatically distrusting established knowledge.
7. What is confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias refers to tendencies to seek, interpret or give greater weight to information that supports existing beliefs or expectations. Recognising this tendency can help us examine whether we are investigating a question fairly.
8. What is metacognition?
Metacognition is commonly described as thinking about thinking. It involves monitoring and evaluating our own cognitive processes, including how we learn, reason and judge our performance.
9. How can I become a more independent thinker?
Start by identifying the actual claim being made, examining original evidence, considering alternative explanations, representing opposing arguments fairly and identifying what would change your mind. Practise applying the same standards to your own beliefs.
10. Does intellectual humility mean trusting experts less?
No. It means understanding both the value and limitations of expertise. Specialist knowledge should be taken seriously, while evidence, methods, uncertainty and possible conflicts of interest remain open to examination.
11. Can we ever know the complete truth?
This is a philosophical question that cannot be settled with a simple answer. We can establish many things with strong evidence and justified confidence, but our understanding of complex subjects remains open to refinement. Recognising limitations does not mean abandoning the search for truth.
12. How does this framework relate to self-actualisation?
Greater self-awareness can help people question assumptions, understand their motivations and make more intentional choices. In this framework, independent thinking supports the wider aim of developing our potential and contributing to human flourishing.
Suggested Reading and Trusted Sources
The following sources provide academic and research-based foundations for the ideas discussed in this article. They cover epistemology, evidence, intellectual humility, metacognition and belief revision.
They do not all support the specific lower- and higher-consciousness terminology used in the Get Out Rat Race framework. That terminology is our conceptual approach to organising these ideas.
1. Epistemology and the philosophy of knowledge
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — Epistemology
A comprehensive academic introduction to the philosophical study of knowledge, justification, belief and the limits of knowing.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — The Analysis of Knowledge
Examines what distinguishes knowledge from merely holding a true belief, including the importance of justification and the philosophical problems raised by Gettier cases.
Gollwitzer, A., Bao, E. and Oettingen, G. — Intellectual Humility as a Tool to Combat False Beliefs (2024)
Published in the British Journal of Social Psychology. Examines whether intellectual humility is associated with exploring information that challenges existing beliefs and revising inaccurate beliefs. The findings offer encouraging but qualified support, rather than proving that humility alone reliably corrects false beliefs.
Fleming, S. M. — Towards an Integrative Neuroscience of Metacognition (2026)
Published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Examines how humans monitor and evaluate their own cognitive processes, including confidence and uncertainty.
This article combines philosophical concepts, psychological research and the original Get Out Rat Race framework.
It is important to distinguish between them.
Epistemology is an established branch of philosophy. Intellectual humility and metacognition are subjects of academic and psychological research. The lower- and higher-consciousness lenses are a conceptual framework developed to encourage reflection on how people interpret information and respond to different perspectives.
This article does not claim that consciousness can be measured on a single scale, that everyone can be divided into two categories, or that every subject has two equally supported sides.
Nor does it suggest that institutional bias is present in any particular case simply because institutions can have incentives or conflicts of interest.
Specific factual claims should be supported by relevant sources and evaluated on their own merits.
The purpose is to make the process of thinking more transparent, not to replace one rigid worldview with another.
