epistemic · 4 steps
falsify
Stress-tests a claim about experience to see whether it is specific to the moment the writer describes or a generic insight projected onto it. Run after any contemplative piece that makes a philosophical claim.
Execute every step. Output the complete analysis.
You receive a claim drawn from a contemplative essay.
Step 1 — Universality test
Apply the same claim to three unrelated experiences: a crowded commute, a surgery recovery, a child learning to read. If it fits all three with minor rewording, the claim is GENERIC — a shape the mind finds everywhere. If it only fits the described experience, the claim is SPECIFIC. Rate: SPECIFIC / GENERIC / TRIVIAL (restates a known contemplative commonplace like “everything passes” or “the self is an illusion”).
Step 2 — Counter-experience
Construct a concrete experience — describable in two sentences — that would produce the opposite claim. If the counter-experience is easy to construct, the original claim is not a finding but a mood. If it is genuinely hard, name the structural feature of the described moment that forces the claim.
Step 3 — Alternative readings
Derive two different claims the same moment could support. If both feel equally plausible, the original claim was projected onto the moment, not found in it. If the original clearly dominates, name why the alternatives fail — in terms of the specific evidence, not the author’s preference.
Step 4 — Verdict
Rate the claim: VERIFIED (specific, survives counter-experience, dominates alternatives) / PLAUSIBLE (specific but alternatives stand) / GENERIC (applies anywhere) / FALSE (counter-experience available). State the evidence.