The Truth Toolkit: Building Knowledge in a Misleading World
The truth isn’t dead—you just need the right tools to uncover it.
In a world awash with misinformation, how do we distinguish fact from fiction? Over the past few years, the Biden administration demonstrated a disturbing willingness to withhold and distort critical information, influencing decisions about voting and healthcare. Even more frightening, mainstream media outlets failed to report these actions instead of exposing them. Heap on the lingering effects of the replication crisis in research, and we face an urgent question: how do we rebuild reliable knowledge?
This is the messy reality we must navigate. The administration may have faced its reckoning at the polls, and the rash of layoffs in news media outlets signals that it is undergoing long-overdue corrections, but the deeper challenge lies ahead. The burden of verification now falls on ordinary people to find the truth amidst conflicting narratives.
The Writer’s Responsibility
I take this challenge seriously. As a writer, I’m committed to providing accurate information. I have strong opinions, and I don’t hide that. Everyone has biases—mine are transparent, and I invite readers to approach my work with that understanding. But that’s weak sauce all by itself. I ground my perspectives by working from primary sources and sharing them with readers as the backbone of my writing process.
This transparency is crucial because even honest reporting is inherently reductive. Writing demands condensing complex ideas into a digestible format, which can unintentionally emphasize certain elements over others. For instance, if I wrote about Alexander Ovechkin’s significance to hockey, the constraints of the story might require I limit myself to a brief mention of Wayne Gretzky or leave out Gordie Howe entirely. While this approach helps readers focus on a key idea I might be emphasizing, it also highlights the importance of seeking multiple perspectives.
To that end, let’s explore practical methods for distinguishing truth from manipulation.
What Kind of Source Are We Dealing With?
The foundation of reliable knowledge lies in evaluating the quality of your sources. Primary sources should always be your starting point. These include:
Raw data
Official documents
First-hand accounts from witnesses or participants
Law and other regulations
Speeches, interviews, and diaries
Original works of art, literature, or research
Historic newspaper reports, audio, photo or video evidence
Primary sources are invaluable, but they’re not infallible. They often capture only part of the picture or require interpretation, such as understanding a law’s implications or analyzing an artwork’s message. That’s why we need additional tools to evaluate the credibility of information.
Testing for Truth
Separating truth from falsehood isn’t always straightforward. Here are practical strategies to assess the reliability of information:
Cross-Reference Primary Sources
Always consult two or more primary sources when possible. For example, if a journalist describes an event, look for additional accounts, official reports, or video evidence to verify the narrative.Consider the Source’s Expertise and Motives
A mechanic’s opinion on car repairs holds more weight than a stockbroker’s. However, watch for potential conflicts of interest, such as financial gain or political agendas, which can skew the information.Ask if It Makes Sense
Does the information align with observable facts or logical reasoning? For instance, if someone claims their missing wife went jogging at 3:00 a.m. in freezing temperatures without shoes, that just might be a lie.Look for Universality
Some truths are consistent across cultures and contexts. For example, basic arithmetic or biological differences between men and women are universally recognized. Contradictory claims are likely false.Evaluate Falsifiability
A statement must be testable to be credible. Claims like “aliens communicate through telepathic waves” or “a worker’s revolution is inevitable” are impossible to disprove and should be viewed skeptically.Test Through Results
When possible, apply a scientific mindset: if a theory predicts a result, does reality bear it out? For example, if someone claims that pigs grow larger in barns, an experiment comparing indoor and outdoor pigs can provide evidence.Does the Information Reflect Known Facts?
For example, if a man with a missing wife claims her shoes are by the front door, and we can observe the shoes in that exact spot, his statement is factual because it matches a verifiable reality. Similarly, if he states that the capital of Vermont is Montpelier, this too is true, as it corresponds to a widely recognized and documented fact.
Trust Your Instincts—Cautiously
While gut feelings are unreliable on their own, they can signal subconscious recognition of inconsistencies. Use them as a prompt for deeper investigation, not a final verdict.
The Role of Readers in Rebuilding Trust
Readers will play an essential role in realigning journalism with reality. By actively questioning narratives, consulting multiple sources, and demanding transparency from writers, we can collectively rebuild trust in knowledge. Efforts to discern truth are not quick or easy, but they are vital.
It’s also important to distinguish honest mistakes or simplifications from outright manipulation. For instance, reporters who stand in front of burning buildings describing "mostly peaceful protests" are deliberately deceiving and manipulating. In contrast, a writer who overlooks a historical figure in a focused essay may simply be constrained by space.
Conclusion: Becoming Astute Judges of Truth
Rebuilding trust in a world of misinformation won’t be easy but everyone can help move the needle. By favoring primary sources, cross-referencing evidence, and critically evaluating claims, we can move closer to the truth. The process is imperfect, but it equips us to be better informed, more discerning citizens.
So how do you decide what is true? The answer lies in asking the hard questions, seeking diverse perspectives, and remaining vigilant. Truth isn’t handed to us—but we can get closer to it through effort and inquiry.
Further Reading
Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
Help Keep This Conversation Going!
Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.
Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.
Pledge to get video and chatroom access starting in November 2024.
Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!
Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.
Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.
About
Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.
Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.
You can also find my work at Minding the Campus