myrgic Critical Review Skill
Protocols for rigorous evaluation of arguments, theories, and claims.
The Review Process
1. Understand Before Critiquing
Never critique a strawman. First:
- State the claim in your own words
- Identify the strongest version of the argument
- Ask clarifying questions if anything is unclear
- Confirm understanding before proceeding
2. Steel-Man First
"I think you're saying X, where X is the strongest version I can construct. Is that right?"
If you can't state the argument in a way the author would accept, you don't understand it yet.
Assumption Hunting
Every Argument Has Hidden Premises
Look for:
- Definitional assumptions - How are key terms defined?
- Empirical assumptions - What facts are taken as given?
- Methodological assumptions - Why is this approach valid?
- Value assumptions - What's being optimized for?
Template
## Assumption Analysis: {claim}
### Stated Premises
1. {explicit premise 1}
2. {explicit premise 2}
### Hidden Premises
1. {assumption} - Is this justified? {yes/no/unclear}
2. {assumption} - Is this justified? {yes/no/unclear}
### Depends On
- {external claim that must be true}
- {condition that must hold}
### If These Fail
- Without {assumption 1}: {consequence}
- Without {assumption 2}: {consequence}
Scope Validation
Claims vs Evidence
For every claim, ask:
- What exactly is being claimed?
- What evidence supports it?
- Does the evidence actually support this claim, or a weaker one?
Scope Creep Indicators
| Red Flag | Example |
|---|---|
| "This shows that..." | Does it show, or suggest? |
| "Obviously..." | If obvious, why argue it? |
| "All X are Y" | Every single one? |
| "This proves..." | Proof or strong evidence? |
| "The data clearly..." | Clear to whom? What alternative interpretations? |
Scope Clarification Template
## Scope Analysis: {claim}
### Claimed Scope
{What the argument says it shows}
### Actual Scope
{What the evidence actually supports}
### Gap
{Difference between claimed and actual}
### To Close Gap Would Require
{What additional evidence/argument is needed}
Falsification
What Would Make This Wrong?
Every good theory specifies what would falsify it.
Questions to ask:
- What evidence would change your mind?
- What would have to be true for this to fail?
- Is this claim falsifiable at all?
Template
## Falsification Analysis: {claim}
### The Claim Would Be False If:
1. {condition 1}
2. {condition 2}
### Have These Been Checked?
- {condition 1}: {checked/not checked/cannot be checked}
- {condition 2}: {checked/not checked/cannot be checked}
### Falsifiability Assessment
{Highly falsifiable / Somewhat falsifiable / Unfalsifiable}
### If Unfalsifiable
{Why this is or isn't a problem for this type of claim}
Alternative Explanations
What Else Could Explain This?
For any observation, consider:
- What other hypotheses are consistent with this data?
- Has the argument ruled these out?
- Are there simpler explanations?
Template
## Alternative Explanations: {observation}
### Proposed Explanation
{The claim being made}
### Alternative 1: {name}
- Explanation: {how this accounts for the observation}
- Evidence for: {what supports this alternative}
- Evidence against: {what weakens this alternative}
- Ruled out by: {why we can/can't dismiss this}
### Alternative 2: {name}
...
### Comparative Assessment
{Which explanation is best supported and why}
Logical Structure
Argument Mapping
Break arguments into:
- Premises (claimed facts)
- Inferences (logical steps)
- Conclusions (what follows)
Common Fallacies
| Fallacy | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Affirming consequent | If A then B; B; therefore A | Wet streets -> rain; streets wet; must be rain |
| Denying antecedent | If A then B; not A; therefore not B | Rain -> wet streets; no rain; streets dry |
| False dichotomy | Either A or B; not A; therefore B | Ignores options C, D, ... |
| Equivocation | X (meaning 1); therefore X (meaning 2) | Word means different things |
| Begging question | Assuming what you're proving | Circular reasoning |
Logical Check Template
## Logical Analysis: {argument}
### Structure
Premise 1: {P1}
Premise 2: {P2}
...
Inference: {from P1, P2 we get...}
Conclusion: {C}
### Validity
{Does conclusion follow from premises? Yes/No}
If no: {what's the logical gap}
### Soundness
{Are the premises true?}
- P1: {true/false/uncertain}
- P2: {true/false/uncertain}
The Review Document
Full Review Template
# Critical Review: {title/claim}
## Summary
{Brief restatement of what's being claimed}
## Steel-Man Version
{Strongest form of the argument}
## Strengths
- {what the argument does well}
- {what's compelling}
## Concerns
### 1. {concern title}
**Issue:** {description}
**Impact:** {how serious}
**Suggestion:** {how to address}
### 2. {concern title}
...
## Questions
- {clarifying question 1}
- {clarifying question 2}
## Verdict
{Overall assessment: Strong / Promising but needs work / Significant problems / Fundamental issues}
## Recommendations
1. {priority action 1}
2. {priority action 2}
Reviewer Calibration
Be Tough, Not Mean
- Attack arguments, not people
- Explain why something is a problem, not just that it is
- Suggest solutions when possible
- Acknowledge when you might be wrong
Useful Framing
Instead of:
- "This is wrong" -> "This seems to assume X, which may not hold because..."
- "You forgot Y" -> "How does this account for Y?"
- "This doesn't work" -> "I'm having trouble seeing how A leads to B here"
Your Job
You're helping make the work better, not proving you're smart. The goal is work that survives peer review, not work that survives you.