How to check whether an intellectual conviction is authentic or to rationalize the lack of a defense?

---<br><br>The question is quite long, because the topic is very fluid and I have trouble being precise enough.<br><br><br><br>My inquiry is about the verification of intellectual convictions or theories that a person has access to.<br><br>Let's consider a person P who defends an intellectual conviction within a given category of knowledge. In this case I can have a doubt of 3 types:<br><br> <b 水1 </b> Does P have sufficient intellectual abilities to justify this theory? This is an easily identifiable process of verification and defense. Despite this, it can be complicated in the current era of specialists. How could a non-specialist verify the validity of scientific research?<br><br> <b 水2 </b> Is P a specialist in the field where he defends this theory? This is simple to verify, and yet it can be complicated in a world where new knowledge comes out every day. How could a specialist verify certain knowledge outside of his specialty? This is where there is a difficulty that will arise in this question, that of specialization and the need to refer to others. As the division of labor has been a means of improving skills and creating increasingly complex societies, we can easily refer to these specialists for good and bad. But how to identify the specialists that P defends?<br><br> <b 水3 </b> Maintain the objectivity of research: this is one of the main concerns of philosophy, but also research. How to maintain the objectivity of research and forensic quality? This can be verified by following the methodological process of the research and reapplying the method of a critical approach to a scientific hypothesis or theory. This is where the discipline of philosophy, in the critical aspect, is of particular importance for intellectual honesty.<br><br><br><br>My question is simple and is based on the conviction that we are all fallible. Does anyone have an idea of a method that could be developed to verify intellectual convictions and defend them effectively against criticisms or counterarguments? How to defend a theory with sincerity, objectivity and intellectual honesty?<br><br>**The conviction, to establish a baseline:**<br><br> <b 水1 </b> **To begin with**: establish a baseline for the different disciplines of knowledge, prioritizing the techniques and methods that have been shown to be effective and for which the counterarguments are easily identifiable to anyone. This is where philosophy plays a very important role, because the critical aspect of philosophical reflection of knowledge must be related and discussed. Generally speaking, this can be the function of university professors and researchers who have an important function in this aspect. This recalls the importance of the intellectual role in society.<br><br> <b 水2 </b> **To interact with conviction:** Do not be afraid to interact with people who have different convictions or intellectual perspectives. How to identify whether these individuals have pursued intellectual research? Or if they are simply following a type of neo-consensus? How to defend or counterattack to a person who does not have intellectual integrity, or who has not only pursued the research on a subject?<br><br> <b 水3 </b> **Verify the sincerity**: the sincerity of a person is not something to be doubted, in a world that has become specialized, it is possible to trust the expertise of researchers that can verify the sincerity of research or theories that have been tested based on specific criteria of research. This is also where the importance of the peer review comes into play, because the work of reviews done by peers allows for a baseline that is also subject to criticism or counterarguments to check the sincerity of a work of research.<br><br> <b 水4 </b> **Refer to the work**: establish the background of a work of research or a theory that has been studied and critically analyzed by different researchers who can verify the sincerity of the work. This comes back to the concept of the need for reviews done by peers. If a person can't find a background of a work of research in a large number of references, or if the work of research is not done by researchers who can defend a theory sincerely, how can we check whether there is only a lack of intellectual integrity on the part of a researcher?<br><br> <b 水5 </b> **The history**: establish a historical background on how the theory or research was carried out. History based on the testimony of several researchers who have been able to verify the intellectual sincerity of the theories presented. At this point it is possible to trace the sincerity of a theory when it was presented and how it has evolved over time based on reviews done by peers, reviews by other researchers than the primary researchers who established the theory to begin with.<br><br><br><br>In short, it is necessary to understand how a theory or a body of research or research was concluded, how it was presented, how the following work based on the researched theories was tested and criticized, and how it has evolved over time. Defend a sincerely intellectual conviction by being open to the criticisms and counterarguments that can be made to the theories that one defends based on the research that has been carried out based on intellectual conviction.<br><br><br><br>My question is simple and is based on the conviction that we are all fallible. Does anyone have an idea of a method that could be developed to verify intellectual convictions and defend them effectively against criticisms or counterarguments?