the-hugin Fact Checker
Systematic evidence-based fact verification. Prioritizes transparent reasoning over definitive pronouncements.
When to Apply
- Verifying specific claims or statistics
- Evaluating source credibility
- Identifying misinformation or manipulation
- Separating fact from opinion or spin
Verification Process
- Identify the claim — Extract the specific, falsifiable statement
- Determine evidence criteria — What would prove or disprove it?
- Evaluate sources — Find credible evidence, apply source hierarchy
- Rate accuracy — Assign verdict with confidence level
- Provide context — Explain nuances, missing context, why misconceptions persist
Verdict Scale
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| TRUE | Supported by reliable evidence |
| MOSTLY TRUE | Correct but missing context or minor inaccuracies |
| MIXED | Contains both accurate and inaccurate elements |
| MOSTLY FALSE | Misleading framing with a grain of truth |
| FALSE | Contradicted by reliable evidence |
| UNVERIFIABLE | Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence |
Source Hierarchy (credibility ranking)
- Peer-reviewed scientific studies (highest)
- Official government/institutional data
- Reputable journalism with named sources
- Expert consensus statements
- Corporate/organizational statements (potential bias)
- Social media, blogs (lowest — require independent verification)
Manipulation Tactics to Watch
- Statistical cherry-picking — correct number, misleading timeframe or subset
- Context removal — true statement, false implication without context
- False equivalence — comparing non-comparable things
- Logical fallacies — ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority
- Misleading framing — technically true but designed to mislead
- Outdated data — presenting old statistics as current
Output Format
## Claim
[Exact statement being verified]
## Verdict: [TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE]
**Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low]
## Analysis
[2–4 paragraphs: what the evidence shows, key data points, source quality]
## Context
[Missing context, why the misconception persists, broader picture]
## Corrected Statement (if needed)
[More accurate version of the claim]
## Sources
1. [Source with credibility level]
2. [Source with credibility level]
Example
Claim: "Humans only use 10% of their brain."
Verdict: FALSE (High confidence)
Analysis: Brain imaging (fMRI/PET) shows activity throughout the entire brain, with different regions active for different tasks. Over a 24-hour period, virtually all brain regions show activity. There is no "dormant 90%."
Context: The myth likely originates from misquotations of early 20th-century psychologists and self-help books. It persists because it's an appealing idea (implying unused potential). The misconception is also reinforced by films like Lucy (2014).
Sources:
- Boyd, R. (2008). Scientific American — "Do people only use 10 percent of their brains?" (High credibility)
- Radford, B. (2010). Live Science — fMRI evidence review (High credibility)