Examining information without needing to know in advance what the outcome must be

Recognizable questions

- How do I know whether a source is reliable?

- Why do I believe information faster when it confirms what I already think?

- How do I prevent critical thinking from becoming nothing more than criticism of others?

- Should I always listen to ‘both sides’?

- What do I do when reliable sources contradict each other?

- How do I know when there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion?

- Do I dare change my mind when the evidence calls for it?

- What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking means trying to determine what good reasons you have to believe something.

You examine:

  • what exactly is being claimed;

  • where the information comes from;

  • what evidence there is for it;

  • how strong that evidence is;

  • what other explanations may be possible;

  • what speaks against the claim;

  • how much certainty the available information actually justifies.

So critical thinking does not mean:

I believe nothing.

Nor does it mean:

I mainly look for flaws in what others say.

Rather, it means:

I want to know why I believe something — and whether my reasons are good enough.

CLAIM
    ↓
What exactly is being said?
    ↓
Where does this come from?
    ↓
What evidence is there?
    ↓
Are there other explanations?
    ↓
What speaks against it?
    ↓
How certain can I reasonably be?

Critical thinking is not the same as distrust

Someone can be very distrustful and still think very little critically.

For example:

“The government always lies.”

“The media cannot be trusted.”

“Scientists are paid.”

“The organization lies.”

That may sound critical.

But when such statements are fixed in advance and information is then only sought to confirm them, the opposite is actually happening.

A critical thinker also asks:

What am I basing my distrust on?

Does this apply to every source within that category?

What information would show that my conclusion is too strong?

CRITICAL THINKING ≠
automatically being against authority

CRITICAL THINKING =
being able to examine
authority, criticism, and
your own convictions

The hardest source to evaluate critically is often the source you agree with

People are not neutral processors of information.

We tend to accept information that fits our existing ideas more easily and to examine counterevidence more critically.

This is called, among other things, myside bias.

INFORMATION I LIKE TO BELIEVE

‘That makes sense.’
‘See?’
‘This confirms it.’

        versus

INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS ME

‘Who says that?’
‘What is their interest?’
‘Where is the evidence?’
‘I don’t trust this.’

Those second questions are excellent critical questions.

The problem arises when you only ask them of the other side.

One of the most important rules of critical thinking is therefore:

Use the same quality standard for information you like to believe as for information you would rather not believe.

Actively open-minded thinking

In research on critical thinking, people speak of actively open-minded thinking.

That does not mean every opinion is equally likely to be true.

It means being willing to:

  • examine alternative explanations;

  • look for information that may contradict your own conviction;

  • seriously understand arguments from the other side;

  • and adjust your conclusion when the evidence changes.

NOT:

‘How do I prove that I’m right?’

BUT:

‘How can I find out
whether I’m wrong?’

That second question is precisely the powerful one.

Because if a conviction is correct, it does not need to be protected from honest scrutiny.

How do you evaluate a source?

There is no single seal of approval that automatically makes a source true.

A useful check consists of several questions.

1. WHAT IS THE CLAIM?

2. WHERE DID IT ORIGINALLY COME FROM?

3. WHAT EVIDENCE IS GIVEN?

4. DOES THE SOURCE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS TOPIC?

5. CAN I CHECK IT INDEPENDENTLY?

6. WHAT IS NOT BEING TOLD?

7. HOW CERTAIN IS THE CONCLUSION?

1. What exactly is being claimed?

Make a claim as concrete as possible.

For example:

“This remedy works.”

is unclear.

Works for what?

For whom?

How much better than doing nothing?

Compared with which treatment?

For how long?

With what side effects?

The more precise the question, the better the evidence can be assessed.

2. Where does the information originally come from?

A message can be reposted endlessly.

Facebook post
      ↓
blog
      ↓
news article
      ↓
press release
      ↓
research

Anyone who only reads the Facebook post may be seeing information that is five steps removed from the original source.

So whenever possible, try to go back to the original source.

For example:

  • the study itself;

  • a court ruling;

  • the original publication;

  • official statistics;

  • a full speech;

  • an original letter or policy.

But:

Primary does not automatically mean reliable.

An original document can itself be inaccurate, one-sided, or misleading.

A good scientific review study can sometimes be more reliable than a single individual study.

3. What evidence is given?

A statement is not yet evidence.

Compare:

“Many people experience improvement.”

with:

“In a controlled study, 1,200 participants were followed and group A had a better average outcome than group B.”

That second piece of evidence still needs to be assessed.

But it is more verifiable.

So ask:

How do they know this?

CLAIM

‘X causes Y.’

        ↓

EVIDENCE?

experience?
survey?
statistics?
experiment?
study?
document?
testimony?

Different kinds of evidence can support different conclusions.

A personal experience can be true without being general evidence

Someone says:

“I used this remedy and afterwards my symptoms disappeared.”

That may be completely true.

But it still does not prove that the remedy caused it.

Maybe:

  • the symptoms would have decreased on their own;

  • something else changed at the same time;

  • expectation played a role;

  • or it really was the remedy.

AFTER X, Y HAPPENED

does not automatically mean:

BECAUSE OF X, Y HAPPENED

Personal stories are important for understanding experiences.

For claims about cause and effect, more evidence is usually needed.

4. Does the source have relevant expertise?

Expertise matters.

But nuance is needed here too.

A cardiologist has medical expertise, but that does not automatically make them an expert in climate science.

A professor of psychology is not automatically an expert in every psychological specialty.

So ask:

Does this person demonstrably have knowledge of this exact subject?

5. What do independent sources say?

When an important claim comes only from one person, organization, or website, extra checking is wise.

See whether independent sources confirm the same thing.

SOURCE A
   ↓
says X

SOURCE B
independent of A
   ↓
also finds X

SOURCE C
different method
   ↓
finds roughly X

= more reason to trust it

Three websites that all copy the same press release are not really three independent sources, of course.

Don’t just read the website itself

Research into evaluating online sources shows that professional fact-checkers often do something that ordinary internet users do less instinctively: lateral reading.

They do not stay on an unfamiliar website for long looking for signs that the site is trustworthy.

Instead, they leave the page for a moment and investigate:

Who is behind this website?

What do other reliable sources say about this organization?

Is this claim confirmed elsewhere?

UNFAMILIAR WEBSITE

not just:
↓
‘Does this look professional?’

but also:
↓
open a tab
↓
who is the sender?
↓
what do independent sources say?
↓
where did the claim originally come from?

A professional design, impressive title, or long list of sources says little on its own about the quality of the information.

6. What interests are involved?

Interests are relevant.

A manufacturer that pays for research into its own product, for example, deserves extra attention.

But an interest does not automatically prove that the information is wrong.

‘This person has an interest.’

is a reason to check more carefully.

It is NOT automatically proof:

‘So what he says is false.’

Preferably ask:

  • Is the interest disclosed?

  • How was the research conducted?

  • Can others verify the results?

  • Is the same result found independently?

7. How certain is the conclusion?

Critical thinking also means distinguishing between different levels of certainty.

POSSIBLE

↓

PROBABLE

↓

WELL-SUPPORTED

↓

VERY STRONG EVIDENCE

↓

almost certain
within current knowledge

Many topics do not allow an absolute yes or no.

Then:

“Based on the current evidence, this seems likely.”

is often intellectually stronger than:

“I know for sure that this is how it is.”

What if reliable sources contradict each other?

That does not have to mean that nobody knows anything.

First, you can ask:

Have they actually examined the same question?

A study of older adults can give a different result than research among younger people.

Were they conducted in the same period?

New data can change old conclusions.

Did they use the same method?

A small survey is something different from a large controlled study.

How large were the studies?

A small result may be due to chance.

Were the results replicated?

One study is usually less convincing than multiple independent studies that find roughly the same thing.

What does the total body of evidence say?

STUDY A → X

STUDY B → no clear effect

STUDY C → small effect

STUDY D → X

        ↓

don’t ask:
‘Which study do I like best?’

but:
‘What does the whole picture show?’

Your conclusion may then also be:

We still don’t know well enough.

That is not a weakness.

It may in fact be the most rational conclusion.

‘Both sides’ does not always mean fifty-fifty

Critical thinking means seriously examining different explanations.

But it does not mean that every opinion has the same amount of evidence behind it.

Suppose:

100 solid studies
point roughly in the same direction

versus

2 weak studies
find something different

Then it would be misleading to present both positions as equally strong simply because there are “two sides.”

Being open to alternatives means:

I give each argument the attention that the evidence justifies.

Not:

Every belief automatically gets a 50 percent chance of being true.

The strongest version of the other side

A good way to test your own thinking is to try to understand the best argument on the other side.

Not:

“What is the dumbest thing someone on the other side has ever said?”

But:

“What would a well-informed, reasonable person who disagrees with me give as their strongest argument?”

WEAK CRITICAL THINKING

attacking the worst arguments
from the other side

STRONGER CRITICAL THINKING

examining the best arguments
from the other side

If you can only refute a caricature of another position, you still do not know whether your own position is strong.

Critical thinking within a religious environment

When a religious belief is very important to you, examining information can be especially difficult.

It is then not only about:

What is true?

But possibly also about:

What does this conclusion mean for my relationship with God?

What happens to my family?

What if my friends start seeing me differently?

What happens to my outlook on the future?

As a result, an intellectual question can at the same time become an emotional and social question.

INFORMATION
    ↓
not only:
‘Is this correct?’

but possibly also:
‘What will this cost me
if it is correct?’

That does not make someone stupid or irrational.

It makes clear why some questions are harder to examine with an open mind than others.

Critical thinking about Jehovah’s Witnesses

For someone researching Jehovah’s Witnesses, the same basic rule applies as with any other subject:

Use the same standard for all sides.

A Jehovah’s Witness publication is not automatically true just because it comes from the organization.

But a critical website is also not automatically true just because it criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A former member may have valuable firsthand knowledge and still be mistaken about a fact.

A spokesperson for the organization may provide correct information and still be speaking from the organization’s perspective.

Therefore:

JW SOURCE
   ↓
check it

CRITICAL SOURCE
   ↓
check it

EX-JW SOURCE
   ↓
check it

NEWS REPORT
   ↓
check it

MY OWN BELIEF
   ↓
check that too

A practical example

Suppose someone claims:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses taught in year X that event Y would happen.”

You can then take several steps.

1. What exactly is being claimed?

2. Find the original
publication from that period.

3. Don’t just read one sentence,
but also the context.

4. See how often and how clearly
the claim was made.

5. Check later publications.

6. Look at both the explanation
from Jehovah’s Witnesses
and serious criticism of it.

7. Then draw your conclusion.

That is stronger than simply sharing a screenshot whose origin is unknown.

But it is also stronger than ignoring an original publication because an organization later gives a different explanation.

Apply the same method to ex-JW information

After leaving a group, it can be tempting to simply reverse the direction of distrust.

FIRST

organization = trustworthy
critics = suspicious

LATER

critics = trustworthy
organization = suspicious

But that still does not necessarily amount to independent critical thinking.

Ultimately, the criterion should be:

NOT:

‘Which side does it come from?’

BUT:

‘How do we know this is correct?’

An ex-JW video with one hundred thousand views may be incorrect.

A JW publication may present a fact correctly.

A newspaper may make a mistake.

A scientific article may later be corrected.

A court may use different standards of evidence depending on the case.

No category of source is infallible.

The most important question: what would change my mind?

Before looking for information, ask yourself:

What evidence could convince me that my current conclusion is wrong?

If the answer is:

Nothing.

then you are probably no longer investigating whether your belief is correct.

You are defending it.

‘WHAT COULD CHANGE
MY MIND?’

if the answer is:

‘nothing’

        ↓

then the conclusion
is no longer testable

That applies to religious beliefs.

But just as much to anti-religious beliefs, political beliefs, conspiracy theories, and ideas about science.

Changing your mind is not a defeat

People can experience a changed view as:

“I was wrong.”

“I fell for it.”

“How could I believe this?”

But there is also another way to look at it:

OLD INFORMATION
      ↓
old conclusion

NEW INFORMATION
      ↓
reassess
      ↓
better conclusion

Adjusting your view to better evidence is not the failure of critical thinking.

It is critical thinking.

A compact check for any important claim

STOP

What is being claimed?

SOURCE

Where did it originally come from?

EVIDENCE

How do they know this?

CONTEXT

What is missing or not being told?

COUNTEREVIDENCE

What speaks against this conclusion?

CHECK

Do independent sources find the same thing?

OWN BIAS

Do I want this to be true?

CONCLUSION

How certain can I reasonably be?

Questions to think about

  • Which sources do I trust almost automatically?

  • Which sources do I distrust almost automatically?

  • Do I ask both groups for evidence just as often?

  • Do I also look for information that can contradict my current view?

  • Can I fairly explain the strongest argument of someone with a different opinion?

  • Do I distinguish between a personal experience and evidence for a general conclusion?

  • Do I check where quotes, figures, and screenshots originally came from?

  • What could actually change my current view?

  • Can I say “I don’t know yet” when the evidence is insufficient?

  • Do I apply the same standard to information I very much want to believe?

In summary

Critical thinking does not mean:

distrust everything
criticize everything
always look for a counterargument
or never being sure of anything again.

It means:

asking questions
checking sources
weighing evidence
examining alternatives
recognizing your own preferences
and being able to adjust your conclusion.

In the end, the question is not:

‘Which side should I believe?’

but:

‘Which conclusion is
best supported
by the available evidence?’

Scientific sources

  • Jonathan Baron — research on actively open-minded thinking and rational thinking.

  • Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F