When presented with statements, I make a number of critical judgements:

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable?
Is the content of the statement consistent with the context?
Is the statement internally consistent (it doesn't contradict itself)?
Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar?
Does the statement violate "common sense"?

What I describe is a 'background mental operation", not a deliberate forensic test for falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily result in "truth". The procedure protects me (to a fair degree) from outright false statements.

"Truth" can require a much more diligent, deliberate effort than merely detecting falsehoods, inconsistencies, irrelevant information, and so forth. Truth = a representation of the world as it actually exists.

Deciding whether "a representation of the world as it actually exists" may require lengthy reflection, a kind of fermentation. Arriving at a "TRUTH" can be disruptive, if old certainties collapse.

An example of a disruptive TRUTH might be the fresh conclusion that it was actually NATO and the European Union that had caused Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The actions of NATO and the EU threatened Russia's security. Instead of NATO and the EU wearing white hats and Ukraine being the victim, it is actually Russia that is the victim, and there is nothing virtuous about NATO, EU, or Ukraine.

I do not believe my example. However, some people believe that Russia is the aggrieved party and that the US and the EU are the aggressors. These people may be looking at the same information that I see. That people arrive at opposite conclusions is one of the problems of looking for THE TRUTH.

A representation of the world as it actually exists will include the contradictions which exist in the real world, but a contradictory truth makes us all unhappy. We want truth to be free of contradiction. Unfortunately.....

Reinforcements from several different sources helps.

But look at the Ukraine/Russia War. How many Russian soldiers have died. One source may say 100,000, another source may say 36,000, and a third source may say 1,567.

Don't believe any of them.

What I describe is a 'background mental operation", not a deliberate forensic test for falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily result in "truth". The procedure protects me (to a fair degree) from outright false statements. — BC

That's a fairly comprehensive checklist for critical judgment. Mine is almost identical, though I list in a different order.

The "truth" is elusive, and usually beyond the scope of any single statement or fact-checking one can do on one statement: there is always a larger context.

The Russian war example is a good one: neither spin is an outright lie and neither is accurate; both PsOV are valid within a context that has to stretch back over three decades, and that situation came out of WWII, which was a result of what happened because of ....... Eve taking that pomegranate or something equally untrue.

For forensic purposes, we have to investigate a larger field of facts, mistakes, lies and questionable data than we do for simple acceptance or rejection of a statement.

For me, the potential consequences determine the degree of rigour I need to apply. Having run through the critical checklist, we can believe a declaration of love, or car repair bill or food label provisionally - until it's contradicted by later evidence.
In a criminal court, we don't get a chance to edit or rescind a verdict: somebody goes to jail who didn't commit the crime, or goes free to commit another.
Political decisions, like whether to support a party or candidate, carry even greater responsibility, and international hostilities have the biggest consequences of all. And yet most people seem not to not subject those claims even to the scrutiny they accord a trivial purchase from amazon.

Examining information carefully with an eye toward "the truth" is a time-consuming habit, and it can be difficult. There are good reasons why people bypass close examination.

One of the best, inevitably flawed ways we deal with the problem is by building a "system" through which information passes. If--over years' worth of time--we have done a good job, we can detect falsehoods reasonably well. Donald Trump's system (and those of his running dog lackeys) was perversely unable to hit the 2+2=4 level of fact checking.

For me, the potential consequences determine the degree of rigour I need to apply. — Vera Mont

Yes. I can live with the possibility that the can of organic tomatoes might not be all that organic, but I want my biopsy to be done very, very carefully. As for why somebody shot somebody else in a dark alley in Detroit ... well, I'll take the reporter's word for it.

well, I'll take the reporter's word for it. — BC

Me too - unless I'm in the forensic lab or on the jury.

I do agree about developing a BS detecting system over time. It's unfortunate that many use a bias/habit filter, rather than a reason/experience filter - their stubborn wrong-headedness gives all seniors a reputation for reflex conservatism.

rigour — Vera Mont

Are you Canadian?

Yes. It that OK?

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it?
What are you criteria and standards? — Vera Mont

If the source didn't pass through the filter of journalists and journalism, I will believe it. I tend to consider as "reliable" those sources that can be seen or read by themselves, without the interaction of others. I know it is a paradox, but when someone asks to please share information with more transparency and then it ends up in a "third authority," it turns out that the information itself suffers from reductionism...

So, one thing I have learned is that to know something, it is better to discover it by myself.

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it? — Vera Mont

Depends on the statement. A lot of the time I have no special interest in knowing if something is true or not. I understand that most statements are subject to a particular perspective or worldview. Like most people I generally use intuition (experience) and sources I hold more credible than others - certain journalists, experts, etc.

Somehow, I needed to think first whether I should answer as a 5 year old or as an adult. Because look below -- it seems like children should be included in the OP:

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it? — Vera Mont

When it's my mother talking.

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable? — BC

Yeah, she was reliable in the past. If she said I'd get punished for wrongdoing, I got the punishment when I'd done something wrong.

Is the content of the statement consistent with the context? — BC

I don't know if a 5 year old can understand "context".

Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar? — BC

I knew my father would support my mother's statement. So, my father was the external information.

Does the statement violate "common sense"? — BC

Sometimes my mother didn't have common sense -- so in those instances, nothing was violated. Otherwise, she had common sense.

Edit: I forgot to answer the last question. Did her statement violate my common sense? No. I didn't have the luxury of thinking for the sake of common sense -- it was my mother talking.

:grin:

I might have preferred the adult....

Welcome. :cool:

I might have preferred the adult.... — Vera Mont

Me too.

I don't have any adult thing to add to your already exhaustive list. :up: