trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Acids turn litmus paper red.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
6 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that acids turn litmus paper red?

Yes. Multiple reference sources state that acids turn litmus paper red, including a science encyclopedia and a chemistry overview. A couple of philosophy texts also treat the statement as a defining proposition about acids.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 6 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

Evidence for · 6
Get citation
Simple English Wikipedia: Litmus paper. (n.d.). simple.wikipedia.org. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_paper

See more details
More for · 5
2026
Get citation
Khani, A. H. & Kemp, G. (2026). The Routledge Handbook of Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers: Part 2. play.google.com. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=YWkJEgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_api

2015
Get citation
Goldman, A. I. (2015). Theory of Human Action. play.google.com. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=m3F9BgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_api

1991
Get citation
Wright, M. A. J. D. R. J. J. M. J. M. B. R. f. S. W. M. S. D. (1991). THE WORLD OF SCIENCE. archive.org. https://archive.org/details/bwb_p8-agz-137_g4i5

2024
Get citation
PROTOLYC THEORY OF ACIDS AND BASES. (2024). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10469282

Get citation
thedorlingkindersleyscienceencyclopedia2. (n.d.). archive.org. https://archive.org/details/thedorlingkindersleyscienceencyclopedia2

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work