A checklist for determining the truth

I read a book about checklists called The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande. He concluded that the best checklists were no more than seven steps long, not too wordy, easy to understand; imagine a pilot trying to restart an engine so he does not crash. If there was a checklist for determining the truth what would the steps be? It should be practical and does not need to delve too far into epistemology. I have been fascinated by this ever since the Metoo movement. I saw some bad people being rooted out but I also saw innocent people destroyed by questionable logic.

Here's my checklist

1. Skepticism: Be skeptical of all assumptions and assertions.
2. Falsifiability: What would prove to you that you "truth" was false?
3. Occam's Razor: Are there any other more simple explanations to your truth?
4. Can your truth be explained away with a better understanding of cognitive biases or logical fallacies?
5. How is your "truth" skewed by where you sit on the political spectrum?
6. Would your "truth" hold up if you had to defend it in court?
7. What does Wikipedia, Rationalwiki, Quora, Snopes, or Politifact say about your "truth"?

Excellent checklist. I'm sure the more intelligent a person is the more s/he is inclined to apply or filter through
some sort of variation of all the above. Even if it's just a mild application of Bayes Theorem of probability.

Interestingly enough there is a new study being developed by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics called the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. Kanazawa's theory attempts to explain the differences in the behavior and attitudes between intelligent and less intelligent people. The hypothesis is based on two assumptions:

"First, that we are psychologically adapted to solve recurrent problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors in the African savanna.
"Second, that 'general intelligence' (what is measured by IQ tests) evolved to help us deal with nonrecurrent problems for which we had no evolved psychological adaptations."

"The assumptions imply that "intelligent people should be better than unintelligent (instinctual) people at dealing with 'evolutionary novelty' — situations and entities that did not exist in the ancestral environment." Dutton and Van der Linden modified this theory, suggesting that evolutionary novelty is something that opposes evolved instincts and untested belief systems.

In other words, the more intelligent a person is the less susceptible they are to relying on instinctual beliefs.

Hi, Jacob!


A checklist for determining the truth sounds like a valuable and much-sought-after artifact. Though, I'm not sure you've found it. What do you mean when you say that the checklist is for determining the truth? Are you saying that in order to verify that a proposition is true, I should consult these seven steps?

If so, then I would take issue with the checklist for a number of reasons. Firstly, not all of the questions tell you how to proceed once they've been answered. Suppose I state that there is nothing that would prove to me that my "truth" is false (step 2). Where do I go from there? Instructions for how to continue would be critical for a checklist.

Secondly, the questions are not all relevant or necessary to verifying even some simple claims. It's true that a bird pecked at my living room window this morning. I can't and don't need to find online information about that (step 7); I can't and don't need to prove that in a court of law (step 6); I have no need for considering my political views (step 5) or logical fallacies or cognitive biases (step 4); and I don't find Occam's Razor to be relevant (step 3).

All that now remain for that proposition are steps 1 and 2, and they wouldn't help me determine whether a bird really pecked at my window this morning. This leads into my third issue with the checklist. The steps are not only irrelevant or unnecessary to certain matters of verifying the truth, but are also insufficient. After consulting your checklist, I couldn't determine the truthfulness of a propositions as simple as "a bird pecked at my window this morning".

There are countless propositions analogous to the example given of the bird. Moreover, I also think that mathematical and logical principles are unverifiable by means of consulting your checklist, as well as truths gained introspectively—i.e. I had a dream last night about shaving my hair—as well as moral truths—i.e. killing an innocent person is objectively wrong. Additionally, I don't see how the claim "this seven step checklist is a good checklist for determining the truth" is itself verifiable according to that same checklist.

In sum, I doubt the relevance, necessity and sufficiency of your checklist for determining whether a proposition is true or not (verification). This includes propositions about everyday life, mathematics, logic, our internal lives, morality, and the checklist itself, among other topics addressed by propositions. Over all, I think the saving merit of your checklist is that it encourages the spirit of open-mindedness and the willingness to accept being wrong about a belief.

Thank you, Jacob

From, Kaiden

Thanks for the posting. I like your list, but it will not determine truth. Perhaps it can help you determine whether you believe something, or whether you rationally hold something, but truth cannot be determined by checklist.

It's actually self-contradictory to assume otherwise. It's very much like Godel's incompleteness. You can form a sentence which says: This sentence does not satisfy the checklist. Then that sentence is true if and only if it satisfies the checklist if and only if it doesn't satisfy the checklist. Which is a contradiction.

Perhaps you're unsatisfied with my proof though because it relies on self-reference? Fair enough, and in certain highly restricted domains a checklist-type thing could work. But I think in general it's very unlikely that reality will be so kind as to provide us with truth after simply jumping over a few hurdles.

Here's an example from medicine:
1. Observations implied that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for women would be highly protective of health.
2. Our knowledge of basic endocrinology implied the same.
3. Experiments using baboons and other primates showed HRT would be beneficial.
4. Large scale observational studies of humans showed HRT correlated with positive outcomes.
5. The first large randomized controlled test showed the effects of HRT were so harmful, that the study was ended early and it was recommended that HRT be stopped.
(This is a simplified story, which might be a little outdated now too.)

I think at each step along the way, the proposition that HRT is beneficial would have passed your checklist. And yet apparently it's not true.

I think much more can be said here, it's a fascinating topic.

Best regards!

Hi Jacob,

For this fallacious newbie who teaches systematic procedures for chemical analysis, I think it has the framework of a good systematic approach to consider for my logical analyses. As a programmer, I think it is a good algorithm.

Best wishes,

Joe