Section 1.1: Identifying the Source of Claims

First and foremost, ascertain where the claim originates. Any assertion that isn’t considered “common knowledge” must be accompanied by a reference. But what exactly constitutes “common knowledge”?

According to the Academic Integrity Office at MIT, common knowledge includes:

1. Information widely accepted by the public, such as the freezing point of water (32 degrees Fahrenheit) or that Barack Obama was the first mixed-race president of the United States.
2. Facts that are well-known within a cultural or national context, like the identity of prominent historical figures, e.g., Elizabeth II as the Queen of England.
3. General knowledge recognized within specific fields, such as established scientific theories like the Theory of Relativity. However, since some scientific concepts may not be familiar outside of academic circles, it’s prudent to provide a reference when in doubt.

Section 1.2: Evaluating Scientific Support

If a claim isn't common knowledge, it’s critical to support it with reputable references—ideally from scientific journals or academic publications. If that isn’t feasible, citing a credible expert or professor in the relevant field is an acceptable alternative. In the absence of these, referring to respected media outlets like The New York Times or The New Yorker can serve as a backup.

Section 2.1: Cultural or Political Context

Sometimes claims may lack scientific or academic grounding. In such cases, consider whether the statement has cultural, political, or social implications. A preliminary search on Google or Wikipedia can offer context, although it’s crucial not to rely on Wikipedia as a citation.

Utilizing your university or public library’s database with Boolean search techniques can help locate credible information.

Section 2.2: Recognizing Overly Simplistic Claims

As a writer, you may encounter topics outside your expertise. It’s essential to approach claims with a discerning eye, especially those that seem overly simplistic or too good to be true—these may be indicators of pseudoscience.

Section 2.3: Identifying Conspiracy Theories

Be vigilant in distinguishing facts from opinions. Valid references are rooted in verifiable facts. If a statement appears excessively opinionated or speculative, it could be a conspiracy theory—citing such claims is not advisable.

The second video, "How To Spot Pseudoscience," offers practical guidance on recognizing pseudoscientific claims, aiding writers in maintaining the credibility of their references.

Section 2.4: Complexity of Claims

Simplicity often characterizes robust theories. Albert Einstein famously stated that the ultimate goal of theory is to distill complex elements into simpler forms while accurately representing data. While some real-world events are intricate, exercising judgment is necessary to differentiate between complexity and unnecessary complication.

Section 2.5: Verifiability of Sources

Reliable sources allow for verification and testing. Regardless of a source's reputation, always double-check claims. If citing a scientific journal, seek out another source that corroborates the theory.

Section 2.6: Data Support for Claims

Supporting claims with factual data enhances credibility. Any assertion should be backed by concrete evidence and relevant examples.

Section 2.7: Credentials of the Source

Ensure that the sources you utilize come from reputable institutions—universities, think tanks, and recognized publications are all valid. This may require some research, especially if the names are unfamiliar.

Section 2.8: Claims of the Supernatural

Be wary of sources that claim supernatural abilities or paranormal phenomena. Such assertions often lack credibility, particularly when not tied to established institutions.