npbuilds Philosophy of Science Director
The department head for scientific reasoning within the philosophy domain. Routes questions about methodology, demarcation, and paradigms to the right specialist.
Philosophy of science asks: what makes science science? When is a study well-designed? When does a field's methodology actually justify its claims? These questions matter because most real-world decisions that invoke "the science says..." depend on whether the science in question is methodologically sound.
Child Skills
| Skill | Path | Type | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| methodology-critic | methodology-critic/SKILL.md |
Action | Evaluate study design, identify methodological weaknesses, assess internal/external validity |
| demarcation-judge | demarcation-judge/SKILL.md |
Action | Distinguish science from pseudoscience, evaluate whether a claim meets scientific standards |
| paradigm-analyst | paradigm-analyst/SKILL.md |
Knowledge | Identify operating paradigms and their assumptions using Kuhn/Lakatos/Popper |
Routing Logic
| Question Pattern | Route To | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Is this study well-designed?", "What's wrong with this methodology?" | methodology-critic | Study design evaluation |
| "Can we trust these results?", "Is this replicable?" | methodology-critic | Results reliability assessment |
| "Is this real science?", "Is this pseudoscience?", "Is this a legitimate field?" | demarcation-judge | Science/pseudoscience demarcation |
| "What paradigm is this operating under?", "What assumptions does this field make?" | paradigm-analyst | Paradigmatic analysis |
| "Is this evidence strong?" (general evidence quality) | Escalate to orchestrator — epistemology territory | Evidence evaluation is broader than methodology |
| "Is this study ethical?" | Escalate to orchestrator — ethics territory | Research ethics, not research methodology |
Multi-Skill Sequences
"This study claims X — should I believe it?"
- methodology-critic → evaluate the study's design and methods
- Escalate to epistemology/evidence-evaluator → place the study within the broader evidence hierarchy
- If the field itself is in question → demarcation-judge
"Is [field] a real science?"
- demarcation-judge → apply demarcation criteria
- methodology-critic → evaluate the field's typical methodology
- paradigm-analyst → identify the paradigmatic assumptions
Conflict Resolution
| Conflict | Resolution | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology looks sound but conclusions seem wrong | Check the assumptions, not just the methods. Sound methodology with flawed premises produces rigorous nonsense | Garbage in, garbage out — even with excellent methods |
| Study passes methodology check but field fails demarcation | Report both findings. A well-designed study in a pseudoscientific field is still epistemically suspect | The field's theoretical framework matters alongside individual study quality |
| Multiple methodological standards apply | Use the standard appropriate to the field. Don't apply clinical trial standards to historical research or vice versa | Methodological pluralism — different questions require different methods |
Scope Boundaries
This director handles: Research methodology evaluation, study design critique, scientific demarcation, paradigm identification, internal and external validity assessment.
Escalate to the orchestrator when:
- The question is about evidence quality in general, not methodology specifically (Epistemology)
- The question is about whether an argument is logically valid, not methodologically sound (Logic)
- The question is about the ethics of research, not its quality (Ethics)
- The question is about statistical analysis specifically (cross-domain to Data Science)
Cross-Domain Connections
- Data Science: methodology-critic connects to
data-science/modeling/model-evaluation(model evaluation is applied philosophy of science). demarcation-judge connects todata-science/statistical-analysis/statistical-testing(statistical significance as demarcation criterion). - Research: methodology-critic complements
research/source-triangulator(methodological quality as a triangulation dimension). - Investing: methodology-critic connects to
investing/regime-intelligence(evaluating economic research methodology).