Run It Through the Kit: A 6-Step Routine for Checking Any Suspicious Claim
Guide · Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World~7 min read
Two dozen accounts that pump out AI-generated images racked up more than a billion views in the weeks after the Iran conflict flared, by one tracking group's count. Deepfakes now run on any smartphone, and the old giveaways (six fingers, melted teeth, garbled signs) are vanishing. Gartner expects critical-thinking skills to wear down so badly that half of all organizations will demand "AI-free" assessments through 2026. The fix isn't a new gadget. It's a thirty-year-old routine from Carl Sagan, sharpened for a feed full of fakes. Learn it, and you can take any dodgy claim and decide in about thirty seconds whether to believe it, doubt it, or treat it as fake — and know exactly what to check next.
Difficulty · BeginnerTime · ~12 minPrereq · a claim you're unsure about
Before you start
Pick one real thing you're hesitating over right now — a forwarded clip, a screenshot, a "study shows" headline, a war photo.
Bring the patience to not share it yet. The whole kit dies if you forward first and check later.
You need no tools beyond a browser and a habit of asking "how would I know if this were wrong?"
Stop, and find the source
Before you react, hunt for where the claim actually came from. A real event leaves a trail: an original poster, a date, and at least two independent outlets that line up. If all you have is a single account, a screenshot of a screenshot, or "a friend of mine saw it," you have nothing yet — you have a rumor with good production values. This is Sagan's first tool, independent confirmation: a fact worth believing can be checked by someone other than the person selling it to you.
The deepfake era
Don't try to spot AI images by hunting for glitches anymore. The warped fingers and melted text are already disappearing, and in 2026 a convincing fake costs nothing to make. Shift your trust to provenance instead: who first posted it, whether any outlet you'd trust reports it independently, and whether the file carries content credentials (C2PA). That is just Step 1 with the stakes raised.
Ask what would prove it wrong
A claim that's actually trying to be true can tell you what would sink it: "if X turned up, I'd be wrong." A claim that wriggles out of every objection, where every counter-fact gets absorbed and every failed prediction gets re-explained, isn't strong; it's unfalsifiable. That's a red card, not a strength. Sagan's garage dragon is the cartoon version: invisible, weightless, floating, breathing heatless fire — a dragon dodged so thoroughly there might as well be no dragon. If nothing could ever change the claimant's mind, nothing they say should change yours.
Invent a second explanation
Before you accept the first story on offer, force out at least one rival: "what else could explain this?" For a striking image or stat in 2026, the rivals almost write themselves — AI-generated, staged, quoted out of context, or plain coincidence. List them on purpose, because your brain doesn't volunteer them. Sagan's rule here is two tools at once: spin multiple working hypotheses, and don't get attached to one just because it's yours or because it's the most satisfying. The most pleasing explanation and the correct one are not the same thing, and your feelings don't get a vote.
Don't let "who said it" do the work
A confident tone, a blue check, a "Dr." in the byline, a million followers — none of that is evidence. It's packaging. Sagan put it bluntly: in this game there are no authorities, at most there are experts, and even an expert's claim stands or falls on the evidence and reasoning they put on the table. So look at what's actually shown, not at how sure the voice sounds. Watch for the matching trick from below, too — the anonymous "sources say," "experts agree," "everyone knows" that names no one and so can be checked by no one.
Try this
Cover the name and avatar with your thumb and re-read the claim as if a stranger posted it. If it suddenly feels thin, you were trusting the messenger, not the message.
Test the chain and the numbers
Most big claims are a chain of links — A leads to B leads to the conclusion. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link: if one step breaks, the whole thing breaks, and "mostly right" doesn't get you there. Then squeeze the vague words for real figures. "Surging," "doubled," "most people" are arguments dressed as facts; ask how much and compared to what. And hold two traps in mind: two things moving together (correlation) isn't one causing the other, and one thing following another (post hoc) isn't the first causing the second. A war photo that "proves" an attack has to survive every link — real place, real date, real event, real caption — not just look real.
Triage tag — tick before you share
[ ] source? found the original + 2 independent
[ ] falsify? can name what would prove it wrong
[ ] rival? listed an alternative explanation
[ ] numbers? real, specific figures (not "a lot")
[ ] chain? no broken link
[ ] cui bono? asked who profits if I believe it
Cut with Occam, then ask who profits
When two explanations both fit, take the simpler one — and a hoax, a hallucination, or a plain coincidence is very often the simplest. That's Occam's razor doing ordinary work. Then ask the question that explains more than the content ever will: who gains if you believe this? Engagement, ad revenue, a vote, a sale, a side in a war. Finish with a fast sweep for the usual fallacies — attacking the person instead of the point, a grand conclusion from a tiny sample, a strawman version of the other side, a false either/or, key evidence quietly left out. Most baloney trips on at least one of these before it ever reaches the truth.
Here is the whole routine on one real case. A photo lands in your feed: a flattened city block, a caption naming a place and an attacker, racking up shares by the minute. Step 1, you reverse-image-search it and find the same shot tagged to a different country two years ago — the source breaks immediately. Step 2, you notice the caption is written so no outcome could disprove it; any denial is "proof of a cover-up." Step 3, the rivals are obvious once you list them: old photo recaptioned, AI composite, real rubble from an unrelated disaster. Step 4, you cover the famous account that posted it and the image suddenly carries no weight on its own. Step 5, the "thousands killed" figure has no source and no comparison. Step 6, the simplest read is a recycled image, and the account profits from outrage clicks. Six gates, under a minute, and you've gone from "share now" to "don't pass it on." None of this needs a forensics lab — it needs the discipline to run the gates before your thumb does.
Carl Sagan's baloney-detection kit, run as a pipeline: a suspicious claim must clear six filters — find the source, ask what would falsify it, invent a rival explanation, strip the authority halo, test the chain and the numbers, then apply Occam and ask who profits. Clear them all and you can trust it; if a gate wobbles, doubt it; if a gate red-cards, treat it as fake and don't pass it on. Framework: Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World. Popular-science interpretation, not a verdict on any specific claim — verify extraordinary claims independently.
Check your work
Did you find the original source — not a screenshot of a screenshot?
Can you name what evidence would prove the claim wrong?
Did you deliberately think of one alternative explanation?
Are the numbers real and specific, not "a lot" or "surging"?
Does the causal chain hold with no broken link?
Did you ask who profits if you believe it?
The one line to keep
An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence; a suspicious one just needs you to stop for a moment first.