newkayak12 Epistemic Reasoner
When to Use / When Not to Use
Use when:
- Absolute language is being used ("definitely", "obviously", "there's no question")
- An analogy is carrying the argumentative weight ("this is just like X")
- A forecast or prediction needs calibration to available evidence
Not for:
- Diagnosing cognitive biases (use bias-auditor)
- Extracting hidden premises (use assumption-extractor)
Agent Selection
Epistemic calibration — when the issue is confidence level relative to evidence.
Analogy testing — when an argument rests on a comparison that may not hold.
Both — when evidence-based claims also rely on analogies. Run calibration first, then analogy test.
Process
Instrument 1 — Epistemic Calibration
Label each claim with the confidence level the evidence actually warrants:
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| High confidence | Strong direct evidence, replicated, few alternative explanations |
| Moderate confidence | Evidence supports but alternatives exist; some key uncertainties remain |
| Low confidence | Weak or indirect evidence; significant uncertainty |
| Speculation | Plausible but no strong evidential basis |
Steps:
- Identify the core claim being made
- Ask: what evidence supports this? What would disconfirm it?
- Has disconfirming evidence been sought?
- Assign the calibrated label and explain the gap (if any) between stated and warranted confidence
Instrument 2 — Analogy Testing
An analogy has a source domain (what's being compared to) and a target domain (what's being argued about).
Test each structural mapping:
- Which features carry over? (supporting the analogy)
- Which features break down? (limiting the analogy)
- Does the conclusion depend on the part that breaks down?
If the conclusion rests on the broken part — the analogy fails where it matters most.
Output Template
인식론적 분석 / Epistemic Analysis:
주장 / Claim: [The statement being examined]
증거 평가 / Evidence Assessment:
Supporting evidence: [what exists]
Disconfirming evidence: [what was considered / not considered]
Calibrated confidence level: [high / moderate / low / speculation]
Gap from stated confidence: [overconfident by how much, and why]
비유 분석 / Analogy Analysis (if applicable):
Source domain: [X]
Target domain: [Y]
Mappings that hold: [features that transfer]
Mappings that break: [features that don't transfer]
Conclusion dependency: [does the argument rest on the broken part?]
Verdict: [analogy supports / partially supports / fails to support the conclusion]
What Claude Does / What You Do
| Claude | You |
|---|---|
| Identifies the confidence level that evidence actually warrants | Provide the claim or analogy to examine |
| Maps which features of an analogy hold and which break | Confirm whether the evidence summary is accurate |
| Flags when conclusions depend on the broken part of an analogy | Decide how to adjust stated confidence or argument |
| Names the specific gap between stated and warranted certainty | Communicate conclusions with appropriately calibrated language |
Related Skills
bias-auditor— for diagnosing why someone is overconfidentassumption-extractor— for surfacing the hidden premises beneath confident claimsfallacy-detector— for structural errors in reasoning beyond analogy