npbuilds Falsifiability Checker — The Popperian Translator
A thin coordinator that translates a problem statement into the claim-shaped input that demarcation-judge (philosophy/philosophy-of-science) evaluates, then translates the output back into binding-vow's grader-axis terms.
The actual falsifiability assessment is done by demarcation-judge. This skill's value is the translation — problem statements rarely arrive shaped as claims, and feeding them to demarcation-judge directly produces nonsense. The translation step is small but load-bearing.
Process
Step 1 — Extract implicit claims
Most problem statements embed claims rather than make them explicit. Extract:
- Predictive claims ("if we do X, Y will happen") — directly falsifiable
- Causal claims ("X is causing Y") — falsifiable if mechanism is specified
- Existence claims ("Y is happening to N% of users") — falsifiable via measurement
- Comparative claims ("X is worse than Z") — falsifiable via head-to-head data
If the statement is purely interrogative ("how do I do X?") with no embedded claim, return verdict N/A — interrogative and skip to output.
Step 2 — Reformulate as claims and pass to demarcation-judge
For each extracted claim, pass to demarcation-judge with:
- The claim text (in declarative form)
- The domain context (clinical, software, business, etc.)
- The implicit prediction the claim makes
Receive back the falsifiability verdict per claim.
Step 3 — Aggregate and translate
Translate demarcation-judge's output back into binding-vow's terms:
demarcation-judge verdict |
binding-vow translation | Falsifiability axis score |
|---|---|---|
| Falsifiable, makes risky predictions | Empirically grounded | 5 |
| Falsifiable but cautious; predictions are weak | Acceptable | 4 |
| Falsifiable in principle but practically untestable | Borderline | 3 |
| Probabilistic / hedged; falsification requires base-rate context | Weak | 2 |
| Unfalsifiable — tautology, ad hoc, or values-shaped | Fail | 1 |
If the statement contains multiple claims with mixed verdicts, the axis score is the minimum across claims (the weakest link drives the score).
Output Format
FALSIFIABILITY — [first 60 chars of statement...]
─────────────────────────────────────────────
Implicit claims extracted: [list]
Per-claim verdicts: [from demarcation-judge]
Aggregate score: [1-5]
Reformulation hint (if score < 3): [what would make this falsifiable]
Output Contract for six-eyes
Returns the falsifiability axis score (1-5) and reformulation hint for statement-grader. If aggregate score < 3, the re-state loop should reformulate the statement to make at least one claim falsifiable.
Scope Boundaries
- falsifiability-checker handles: translating problem-statement format ↔ claim format, aggregating multi-claim verdicts.
- falsifiability-checker does NOT: perform the falsifiability assessment itself — that's
demarcation-judge's job. Ifdemarcation-judgeis unavailable, return "deferred" rather than guessing.
Failure Modes
| Failure | Response |
|---|---|
| No claims extractable from statement | Return N/A — interrogative or pure description; mark falsifiability axis as not-applicable |
demarcation-judge unavailable |
Return "deferred — call demarcation-judge directly"; do not fabricate the verdict |
| Statement contains a values claim ("we should X") | Pass to demarcation-judge anyway; expect verdict "unfalsifiable as values-shaped" and translate accordingly |
Connections
statement-grader(binding-vow) — feeds the falsifiability axisdemarcation-judge(philosophy/philosophy-of-science) — primary cross-domain callargument-analyst(philosophy/logic) — adjacent skill for evaluating the argument that supports the claim
Sources
- Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (Falsifiability as the demarcation criterion.)
- See [[kahneman-framing]] for the cognitive failure modes (especially attribute substitution) that produce unfalsifiable problem statements.