Stop Pause before reacting, sharing, or diving in.
When you encounter a science claim in the media, resist the urge to immediately react, share, or form an opinion. Ask yourself: Do I even know what I am looking at? Who made this and why? Am I having an emotional reaction (excitement, anger, fear)? That is exactly when I need to slow down.
This is not a sign of ignorance. Professional fact-checkers do this reflexively. Emotions like fear, anger, or excitement can interfere with your ability to make good judgments. Noticing your emotional state is the first step in thinking clearly.
Take Your Bearings Now that you have paused, look at the bigger picture before diving in.
Before evaluating the claim, identify what you are looking at. Write the specific claim in your own words, note where you found it and how recent the information is, and identify who made the claim and why. Writing the claim in your own words forces you to process it carefully rather than accepting it at face value.
Is the Source Credible? Check credibility using LIARS as a first pass, then lateral reading to dig deeper.
This is the first gate of the decision tree. Before you can trust a science claim, you need to know whether the source is credible. Start with LIARS to check for warning signs, then use lateral reading to investigate further.
First pass: Check for LIARS tactics
LIARS (Allchin, 2022) identifies five tactics used by imitators of science. If a source uses these tactics, it is performing credibility rather than demonstrating it.
Looks: Professional Appearance
Imitators of science invest heavily in professional appearance: glossy websites, official-sounding names, logos that mimic government or academic institutions. Appearance alone is not evidence of credibility. Anyone can create a professional-looking website.
- Does the website look suspiciously polished compared to its actual institutional backing?
- Does the name of the organization sound official but you cannot find it affiliated with any recognized institution?
- Is there a logo designed to look like a government seal, university crest, or scientific emblem?
An organization called the "Global Science Research Institute" with a professional website and official-sounding name may have no institutional affiliation, no peer-reviewed publications, and be funded entirely by an industry group.
Identity: Appeals to Group Belonging
Rather than presenting evidence, some sources appeal to group identity: "people like us believe this" or "they do not want you to know." This turns a factual question into a loyalty test. Science does not work by group affiliation.
- Does the source frame the issue as "us vs. them" rather than presenting evidence?
- Does it appeal to political, religious, or cultural identity to support its claim?
- Does it suggest that accepting the science means betraying your group?
A social media post that says "real Americans do not believe in climate change" is using identity rather than evidence. The science of climate change is independent of political affiliation.
Acting: Performing Expertise
Sources may borrow authority they do not have. A medical doctor speaking about climate science, a physicist opining on epidemiology, or a person with a Ph.D. in an unrelated field being presented as a "scientist" are all examples of acting. Credentials matter, but only in the relevant field.
- Are credentials from an unrelated field being used to claim expertise?
- Is the person introduced as "Dr." without specifying what their doctorate is in?
- Is the source borrowing authority from a prestigious institution they are no longer affiliated with?
A retired physicist signing a petition about climate change does not carry the same weight as a climate scientist. The petition uses the authority of "scientist" while the relevant expertise is absent.
Repetition: Repeating Until Believable
A claim repeated across many outlets can create the illusion of independent confirmation. But if all those outlets trace back to the same original source, it is not confirmation at all. This is the "illusory truth effect" at work: the more you hear something, the more likely you are to believe it.
- Is the same claim appearing across many different outlets?
- Do those outlets trace back to the same original source or press release?
- Is the repetition creating a false sense of "everyone is saying this"?
A single flawed study can generate dozens of news articles, blog posts, and social media shares. The appearance of widespread coverage masks the fact that all of it rests on a single source.
Skepticism: Manufacturing Doubt
Some sources exaggerate uncertainty about well-established science to create the impression that "the science is not settled." This is different from legitimate scientific uncertainty. Manufacturing doubt is a deliberate strategy to delay action or policy, and it has a long history in industries from tobacco to fossil fuels.
- Is the source suggesting that well-established science (climate change, vaccine safety, evolution) is still "debated"?
- Are they presenting fringe views as equally valid as the scientific consensus?
- Does the source use phrases like "the science is not settled" about topics where the overwhelming majority of experts agree?
Presenting one dissenting scientist alongside 97 who agree, as if the "debate" is evenly split, is a common manufactured-doubt tactic called the "magnified minority."
Dig deeper: Lateral reading
Do NOT stay on the source's own website. Open a new browser tab and search for what independent sources say about this source. This is called lateral reading, and it is the single most effective strategy used by professional fact-checkers. Check what Wikipedia, established news outlets, and fact-checking organizations say.
Lateral reading means leaving the source's own website and opening a new browser tab to find out what others say about the source. This is the single most effective strategy used by professional fact-checkers. Instead of reading "vertically" (deeply within one site), read "laterally" (across multiple sites about the same source).
- Open a new browser tab.
- Search for the name of the person, organization, or publication making the claim.
- Look at what independent, reputable sources say about them: Wikipedia, established news outlets, fact-checking organizations.
- Key questions: What do others say about this source? Have they been involved in any controversies? Who funds them?
- Compare what you find to the impression the source gives on its own site.
Conflict of interest is the single strongest red flag when evaluating a science claim. If a source has a financial interest in the conclusion they are promoting, their objectivity is compromised. This does not mean they are automatically wrong, but it means you should not rely on them as your primary source.
- Search for "[source name] funding" or "[source name] donors" or "[source name] industry ties."
- Look for whether the source receives funding from industries that benefit from the claim.
- Check transparency: does the source disclose its funding? If not, that is itself a red flag.
- Remember: industry funding does not automatically make a claim false, but it means you need independent verification.
Your credibility assessment
Is There Relevant Expertise? Does the source have credentials or experience in this specific field?
This is the second gate. A source may be credible in general, but do they have expertise in the relevant field? Not just any field, but the one the claim is about. A nuclear physicist is not an expert on vaccines. A biologist is not an authority on climate modeling.
What Is the Consensus? Do the relevant experts agree? What uncertainty remains?
This is the third and final gate. Even a credible expert can be wrong if they are an outlier. The benchmark for trusting a science claim is whether the community of relevant experts agrees. No single individual can authoritatively claim that they alone are right. Search for what major scientific institutions and organizations say about this topic.
Your Verdict State your conclusion and explain your reasoning.
Based on your full analysis, choose your verdict: TRUST, PROCEED WITH CAUTION, or DO NOT TRUST. Then explain your reasoning in 2 to 3 sentences. What was the most important piece of evidence that led to your verdict?