Establishing causation for a complex societal issue requires more than a single data set. The best approach is to build a "collage of evidence." This involves finding natural experiments—like states that enacted a policy before a national ruling—to test the hypothesis under different conditions and strengthen the causal claim.

To combat confirmation bias, withhold the final results of an experiment or analysis until the entire team agrees the methodology is sound. This prevents people from subconsciously accepting expected outcomes while overly scrutinizing unexpected ones, leading to more objective conclusions.

Simply stating that conventional wisdom is wrong is a weak "gotcha" tactic. A more robust approach involves investigating the ecosystem that created the belief, specifically the experts who established it, and identifying their incentives or biases, which often reveals why flawed wisdom persists.

Contrary to popular belief, economists don't assume perfect rationality because they think people are flawless calculators. It's a simplifying assumption that makes models mathematically tractable. The goal is often to establish a theoretical benchmark, not to accurately describe psychological reality.

To ensure rigorous vetting of ideas, create an environment of friendly competition between teams. This structure naturally motivates each group to find flaws in the other's thinking, a process that might be socially awkward in a purely collaborative setting. The result is a more robust, error-checked outcome.

Physicist Brian Cox's most-cited paper explored what physics would look like without the Higgs boson. The subsequent discovery of the Higgs proved the paper's premise wrong, yet it remains highly cited for the novel detection techniques it developed. This illustrates that the value of scientific work often lies in its methodology and exploratory rigor, not just its ultimate conclusion.

Before committing capital, professional investors rigorously challenge their own assumptions. They actively ask, "If I'm wrong, why?" This process of stress-testing an idea helps avoid costly mistakes and strengthens the final thesis.

A two-step analytical method to vet information: First, distinguish objective (multi-source, verifiable) facts from subjective (opinion-based) claims. Second, assess claims on a matrix of probability and source reliability. A low-reliability source making an improbable claim, like many conspiracy theories, should be considered highly unlikely.

To achieve intellectual integrity and avoid echo chambers, don't just listen to opposing views—actively try to prove them right. By forcing yourself to identify the valid points in a dissenter's argument, you challenge your own assumptions and arrive at a more robust conclusion.