Are you worried you may be engaging in motivated reasoning, rationalization ... or committing other reasoning fallacies?
I propose the following epistemic check using Elicit.org's "reason from one claim to another" tool
Whenever you have a theory that A→B, Take your theory negating one side or the other (or the contrapositive of either negation), and feed it into this tool.
Feed it A→¬B
and/or ¬A→B,
and see if any of the arguments it presents seem equally plausible to your arguments for A→B.
If they seem similarly plausive, believe your original arguments and conclusion less.
Caveat: the tool is not working great yet, and often requires a few rounds of iteration, selecting the better arguments and tell.ing it "show me more like this", or feeding it some arguments.
Are you worried you may be engaging in motivated reasoning, rationalization ... or committing other reasoning fallacies?
I propose the following epistemic check using Elicit.org's "reason from one claim to another" tool
Whenever you have a theory that A→B,
Take your theory negating one side or the other (or the contrapositive of either negation), and feed it into this tool.
Feed it
A→¬B
and/or
¬A→B,
and see if any of the arguments it presents seem equally plausible to your arguments for A→B.
If they seem similarly plausive, believe your original arguments and conclusion less.
Caveat: the tool is not working great yet, and often requires a few rounds of iteration, selecting the better arguments and tell.ing it "show me more like this", or feeding it some arguments.