Unless there is evidence of untrustworthiness, every author is given the benefit of the doubt on veracity, accuracy, etc.

The author is reasonably intelligent.  He is neither a genius nor an idiot.

The author is reasonably educated by the standards of his time, place, occupation, and station in life.

By the standards of his time, place, occupation, and station in life, the author is reasonably knowledgeable about his topic.

By the standards of his time, place, occupation, and station in life, the author is reasonably knowledgeable about how people act, what motivates them, etc.

By the standards of his time, place, occupation, and station in life, the author is reasonably knowledgeable about science, literature, religion, politics, community activities, etc.

Just because the author lived in ancient Egypt or Greece or Rome or Israel doesn't mean he lacked wisdom, intelligence, reasoning, common sense, curiosity, a sense of humor, or healthy skepticism!

The author is neither excessively sloppy nor excessively accurate in his recital of information.

It is virtually impossible to write about something without leaning toward a particular viewpoint.

A person with an interest in the outcome of an event can still present an accurate account!  Consider:

• Does the author seem to present the facts "warts and all"?

• Does he admit weaknesses in his case?
• Does he try to respond to his opponents' arguments?

• Does he try to distract the reader with personal attacks on his opponents that have nothing to do with their arguments?

The author has not made any blatant errors in interpreting or reporting information.  He made reasonable efforts to verify and report information but did not get ridiculous about it.

By definition, a "lie" is a statement which the author represents as being true although he believes it to be false. No matter how blatant or how stupid it is, an error is not a lie.

The author didn't intend to contradict himself and in fact did not contradict himself -- even though, at first glance, there is an apparent contradiction.

1.  A section of a document can be interpreted two ways.
2.  One interpretation contradicts another part of the document or another of the author's writings.
3.  The other interpretation is consistent with other text.
4.  Both interpretations are fairly reasonable.

The interpretation that produces consistency should be used even if it is less likely or less reasonable.

If a person has a reputation for exaggeration or lying, all statements from that person are of doubtful reliability, even those that sound okay.

On the other hand, if a person is shown to be reliable in most things, he is assumed to be reliable even when it can't be proven.

A trustworthy person does not constantly change his views.  If an author has presented a particular viewpoint in previous writings, he probably still holds those views.

If an author's actions are contrary to his words, the reliability of his words is questionable.

The author would not act against his own interest without good reason.  If he makes a statement that is likely to expose him to ostracism, ridicule, public scorn, humiliation, contempt, pain, imprisonment, or death, the statement is likely to be true.

You can tell a lot about the author's character by the company he keeps, the reliability of his sources, etc.

Under similar conditions, the laws of nature remain consistent.

The reader can make reasonable assumptions consistent with logic, common sense, and known circumstances.  (An assumption is not based on the text, e.g., a person gets hungry and sleepy every day.)

The reader can draw reasonable inferences from the text and known information.  (An inference is partially based on the text.)

The burden of proof rests on the person alleging something out of the ordinary, not on the person claiming the ordinary.

A reasonable generalization is not a lie or an error, even if it uses phrases like "all" or "every."

A reasonable approximation is not a lie or an error unless it purports to be more accurate than it is. (E.g., "our income last year was $75,321.62" gives the impression you counted to the penny, not the nearest thousand.)

Sarcasm, obviously blatant exaggeration, for emphasis, etc., is not error. ("They call me 'Elephant' because I work for peanuts.")

Words have their usual meaning.  If we start saying "It says '...' but it really must mean '...'", we are ignoring what the author wrote and substituting our own text.

As with wording, we are not free to "force" an unusual interpretation on a standard grammatical construction.  "And" means both.  It does not mean "at least one."  "Or" means "at least one"!

If the author uses an uncommon grammatical construction it probably was intentional, either for emphasis or special clarity.

Punctuation has its normal meaning, e.g., commas separate. Note -- in Biblical times punctuation was not used.

Every language has idioms -- phrases whose meaning is different from the words, e.g. in English "a knight in shining armor" means "a virtuous hero."  The Spanish equivalent is "un principe azul", which, literally means "a blue prince."

1. Words or phrases unique to that field, e.g., a legal writ

2. Common words or phrases that have a special meaning in that field, e.g., in criminal law a "not guilty" verdict means "the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

Whether a word was used as jargon depends on the intended audience. If the author is writing to specialists, he probably meant the word as jargon.  He probably avoided jargon for a general audience.

Just because someone has a different view or interpretation does not automatically mean that person is wrong.

The author is writing for the average reader of his type of material, not someone who is super educated, super informed, super analytical, super critical, super skeptical, or looking only for weak points or only for strong points.

The author attempts to present enough evidence and arguments to convey his point, not all the evidence and arguments.

The author is writing for a particular audience.  No one tries to write an article on nuclear physics for both physics professors and second grade students!

The author was trying to write something his readers would understand. (Of course, this frequently is not the case in wordy legal documents such as insurance and loan agreements!)

The author makes similar assumptions about his target reader. He assumes the reader is nearly fluent in the language, can hear, see, is already familiar with the basic concepts discussed, etc.