epistemic-reasoner

name	epistemic-reasoner
description	Use when someone states something with more certainty than the evidence supports, or when an analogy is doing the main argumentative work. Two instruments: calibrate what confidence level the evidence actually warrants, and stress-test whether...
scenarios	["How confident should I actually be about this claim?","Is the analogy 'X is like Y' actually valid here?","Am I overstating what this evidence supports?","이 주장을 얼마나 확신해도 될까?","이 비유가 이 맥락에서 정말 맞는 건가?","내가 근거보다 더 확신하고 있는 건 아닐까?"]
compatibility	{"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":["sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 증거 수준과 비유의 유효 범위를 정밀하게 평가하여 적절한 확신 수준을 도출할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."}

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:

1. Identify the core claim being made
2. Ask: what evidence supports this? What would disconfirm it?
3. Has disconfirming evidence been sought?
4. 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 overconfident
• assumption-extractor — for surfacing the hidden premises beneath confident claims
• fallacy-detector — for structural errors in reasoning beyond analogy