counter-experimentlisted

# Counter-Experiment *Not "what's wrong with your claim" but "what would I need to see to believe it — or to know it's wrong."* ## The Practice Given any empirical claim, generate the experiments that would *resolve the ambiguity* between the proposed interpretation and the most plausible alternatives. This is not critique. This is constructive falsification design — Karl Popper as laboratory architect. ## The Protocol ### Step 1: State the Claim Precisely Strip the claim to its falsifiable core. Remove hedging, remove theoretical framework, remove rhetoric. What is the paper *actually predicting* that can be tested? Example from the session that generated this skill: - Claim as stated: "Quantum entanglement enables nonlocal consciousness during clinical death" - Claim stripped to testable core: "Stimulus sequences generated by entangled qubits produce higher recall accuracy in cardiac arrest survivors than random sequences" ### Step 2: Generate the Simplest Alternative Explanation What's the most parsimonious account that would produce the same data without the proposed mechanism? This is not a straw man — it's the strongest simple alternative. Example: "Non-random (entangled) sequences contain structural patterns that are inherently more memorable than random sequences, through entirely classical cognitive mechanisms. No quantum consciousness required." ### Step 3: Design 3-5 Experiments That Discriminate Each experiment should produce *different predictions* un