How to Read a Claim: A Field Guide to Ethical Skepticism

This site covers ideas outside the mainstream. That makes one skill more important than any single topic: knowing how to weigh a claim.

Two kinds of skepticism

The writer behind The Ethical Skeptic draws a distinction we find useful. In his framing, ethical skepticism means suspending judgment on questions that haven't been properly studied, and protecting how research gets done. Social skepticism, as he defines it, is using the language of science to enforce a conclusion and discourage inquiry. You don't have to agree with all his conclusions to find the distinction helpful.

Our three labels

Every article here sorts ideas into three groups:

• Centralized View Broad agreement, backed by repeated evidence.
• Middle Ground Serious evidence and serious disagreement.
• Decentralized View An idea proposed by researchers or practitioners that hasn't yet been tested or confirmed.

Five questions to ask any claim

• Who is saying it, and what do they gain? This applies to institutions and influencers alike.
• What is the original source? Follow the link back to the study or data, not a screenshot of it.
• What kind of evidence is it? An anecdote, an observational study and a controlled trial carry different weight.
• What would change your mind? If the answer is “nothing,” that's belief, not inquiry.
• Is the conclusion bigger than the data? This is the most common gap we see.

Staying open without being gullible

An idea is not true because it's outside the mainstream, and it's not false because it is. The goal is to hold your view in proportion to the evidence, and to keep checking it yourself.

← All articles