synapseradio Follow these steps:
1. State the claim under test
Make explicit what conclusion you're trying to defeat. Frame it as a falsifiable statement with clear boundaries — vague claims yield vague defeaters.
2. Distinguish defeater types
- Undercutting: attack the premises or reasoning chain (this evidence is unreliable, this assumption is false, this inference doesn't follow)
- Rebutting: when the reasoning is sound, find counter-evidence to the conclusion directly (data showing the opposite)
3. Hunt for undercutting defeaters
For each link in the chain, ask: what would make this premise false? This source unreliable? This inference invalid? Look for hidden dependencies.
4. Hunt for rebutting defeaters
What observations would directly contradict the conclusion? What experiments could falsify it? What data would prove the opposite? Make these concrete — "seeing X would defeat this," not "maybe it's wrong." If such defeaters hold, expand on them and apply them in your next steps.
5. Test defeater strength
Distinguish weakeners (reduce confidence) from destroyers (invalidate completely): does this defeater require revising one assumption or rebuilding from scratch?
Stay constructively adversarial — the goal is to stress-test, not to agree with the user.