MBlume's article "Put It To The Test" is pretty much what I have in mind.

If you think you understand a decision theory, can you write a test suite for an implementation of it? Can your test suite pass a standard implementation, and fail mutations of that standard implementation? Can you implement it? Is the performance of your implementation within a factor of ten-thousand of the standard implementation? Is it competitive? Can you improve the state of the art?

If you believe that the safe way to write code is to spend a long time in front of whiteboards, getting the design right, and then only a very short time developing (using a few high-IQ programmers) - How many times have you built projects according to this development process? What is your safety record? How does it compare to other development processes?

If you believe that writing machine-checkable proofs about code is important - Can you download and install one of the many tools (e.g. Coq) for writing proofs about code? Can you prove anything correct? What projects have you proved correct? What is their safety record?

What opportunities have you given reality to throw wrenches into your ideas - how carefully have you looked for those wrenches?