1) How reliable is the source of the claim?

       People like Holocaust denier David Irving appear quite reliable as they cite facts and figures; but often,

           when examined more closely, these details are distorted, taken out of context, or occasionally even

           fabricated.

    2) Does the source often make similar claims?

       What we are looking for here is a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data not for

           creative purposes, but for ideological agendas.

    3) Have the claims been verified by another source?

       Typically, nonscientists and pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified, or verified only by

           sources within their own belief circle.

    4) How does this fit with what we know about the world and how it works?

       An extraordinary claim must be placed into the larger context.  Almost never are new theories valid that

           defy the general repository of knowledge.

    5) Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of the way to disprove the claim,

             or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?

       The confirmation bias tends to seek confirmatory evidence to the exclusion of disconfimatory evidence.

           A claim is only as good as the evidence of the claimant's serious attempt to disprove it.

    6) In the absence of clearly defined proof, does the preponderance of evidence converge to the

            claimant's conclusion or a different one?

       Charlatants do not look for evidence that converges to a conclusion; they look for evidence that fits their

           ideology.

    7) Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research,

             or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusions?

       Most charlatants do not even know the accepted rules of scholarship, let alone employ them objectively.

    8) Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena,

             or is it strictly a process of denying the exosting explanation?

       A classic debate strategy is to criticize your opponent while never affirming your beliefs.  Dennis Kucinich

           became mayor of Cleveland using this principle.  He was impeached when the electorates finally discovered

           their mistake.

    9) If the claimant has proffered a new explanation,

             does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation?

   10) Do the claimants' personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?

       ALL scientists and historians hold social, political, and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their

            interpretations of the data.  Science uses peer review to police itself. If a researcher is not careful to

            interpret the impact of his biases on his results, his peers will !

Micheal Shermer is the author of Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe and is Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine. He often makes personal appearances on TV shows that wish to present a balance perspective relative to claims of the paranormal or fringes of belief systems. Below is our interpretation of his ten tests to determine the scientific worthiness of any claim.  Also check out - How Myths are Made.

MIDDLE TENNESSEE SKEPTICS

Giving Common Sense a Chance