At Get Out Rat Race, we believe that independent thinking begins with the willingness to question information, including information that supports our own beliefs.
Whether we’re examining religion, politics, history, science, economics or society, we should not automatically accept something because it has been presented confidently by a priest, professor, politician, journalist, content creator or artificial intelligence.
Equally, we shouldn’t automatically dismiss an argument because we disagree with the person presenting it.
Our objective is to examine the evidence, understand the reasoning and distinguish what we know from what we believe or assume.
This standard explains how readers can independently investigate the claims and arguments presented throughout our articles and videos.
In this article
The CLAIM Check
Six stages for examining a claim without letting confidence, agreement or disagreement replace evidence.
Stage 1: Clarify the claim
What exactly is being said? Break complicated statements into individual claims. Avoid responding to an exaggerated or simplified version of somebody’s argument.
- What is the precise statement?
- Who made it?
- What are they actually claiming?
Practical example: “Immigration affects housing” is different from “immigration is the only cause of housing shortages”. Establish which claim is being made.
Stage 2: Label the claim
Identify what type of statement is being made. Different statements require different methods of examination; not everything can be fact-checked in the same way.
- Fact: a verifiable event, date or statistic.
- Definition: the meaning of a word or concept.
- Interpretation: an explanation of what something means.
- Inference: a conclusion drawn from other information.
- Opinion: a personal judgement or preference.
- Prediction: a statement about what may happen.
- Value judgement: a position about what is right, wrong or desirable.
Practical example: A law’s date is a factual question. Whether the law is fair is a value judgement requiring a different kind of reasoning.
Stage 3: Assess the original evidence
Trace information back to its original source. Avoid relying exclusively on somebody else’s summary. Where possible, consult the original material.
- Original historical documents or biblical and religious texts.
- Academic research and peer-reviewed papers.
- Official government statistics, reports and datasets.
- Original recordings, speeches and interviews.
- Primary scientific research.
Practical example: Follow a statistic to the original dataset and check what it measures, rather than relying on a headline about it.
Stage 4: Investigate the context
Information can become misleading when taken out of context. Pay particular attention to changing definitions or movement between subjects without establishing the connection.
- Who originally produced the information?
- When was it produced?
- Who was the intended audience?
- What was happening at the time?
- Are definitions being used consistently?
- Has important information been omitted?
- Are there credible alternative interpretations?
Practical example: An international migrant stock is a population at a point in time, not the number of people arriving in a single year.
Stage 5: Measure the reasoning
Even when individual facts are correct, the conclusion might not follow. A genuine quotation or accurate statistic does not automatically prove the argument being made with it.
- Does the evidence actually support the conclusion?
- Are assumptions presented as established facts?
- Is correlation being confused with causation?
- Are two different concepts treated as identical?
- Has the argument moved away from the original question?
- Is there a logical leap between evidence and conclusion?
Practical example: Two trends occurring together do not establish that one caused the other. Consider alternative explanations and evidence of a causal relationship.
Stage 6: Make the verdict provisional
Explain what the evidence currently supports. Remain open to further information, correction and alternative explanations. Not every question has a definitive answer.
- What does the evidence establish?
- What remains uncertain?
- What new evidence would change the assessment?
Practical example: “We don’t know” or “the evidence is insufficient” can be the most honest conclusion, rather than forcing a definitive answer.
Understanding the different verdicts
- Supported
- Available evidence supports the claim.
- Contradicted
- Reliable evidence conflicts with the claim.
- Misleading
- The statement contains some truth but omits important context or implies something unsupported.
- Interpretive
- The statement involves an interpretation or position where reasonable disagreement may exist.
- Unverified
- There is insufficient evidence to establish whether the claim is accurate.
- Opinion / Value judgement
- A subjective or normative position that cannot be established through factual evidence alone.
One argument can contain several different types of claims and may receive more than one classification. Do not force a definitive verdict when evidence is insufficient.
The Argument Drift Test
Arguments can gradually move away from their original subject, particularly when facts, definitions, opinions and interpretations are combined.
- What was the original question?
- What exactly was claimed?
- Has a different subject been introduced?
- Has the definition of a key word changed?
- Has a fact been used to imply something it doesn’t establish?
- Has the conclusion gone further than the available evidence?
An example of argument drift
Someone establishes that religious identification has declined. They then suggest that multiculturalism is responsible. They subsequently conclude that immigration should be restricted to preserve religious identity.
These are separate propositions requiring separate evidence. A change in religious identification does not, by itself, establish why the change occurred or prove that immigration restrictions would reverse it.
Apply the same standard to everyone
The same standards must apply regardless of who makes the claim.
The original speaker
Are their statements accurate? Are they using reliable sources? Are they representing the original material fairly?
The analyst or researcher
Are they interpreting the information correctly? Have they considered evidence that challenges their own conclusions?
Artificial intelligence
Can its claims be independently verified? Does it provide original sources? Could it have misinterpreted, invented or misattributed information?
The reader and content creator
Are we willing to examine our own assumptions and correct ourselves when better evidence becomes available?
“AI is a research and analytical assistant, not an independent authority or substitute for verification. Its conclusions must be examined just like those of any human source.”
Using another AI to check the first AI is not sufficient independent verification. Original sources and evidence must still be examined.
Assessing the credibility of a source
- Does the person have relevant expertise?
- Can they identify their original sources?
- Are their claims independently verifiable?
- Are they representing the evidence accurately?
- Do they acknowledge credible opposing arguments?
- Are they using consistent definitions?
- Are they prepared to correct mistakes?
- Do they distinguish what they know from what they believe or assume?
Qualifications and professional experience are relevant, but they do not replace examination of the evidence or make every claim automatically correct.
Question information. Examine the evidence. Remain willing to revise your conclusions.
← Explore the blog