Is This Explanation Only True in Hindsight?
Added 2026-11-05
Explaining an outcome is not the same as predicting it.
This is an explanation I heard or wrote: [explanation]. Test whether it is hindsight reasoning: 1) separate what was knowable beforehand from what only became knowable after the result; 2) given only the beforehand information, could this explanation have produced a testable prediction; 3) list other explanations that fit the same result and compare their predictive power in advance; 4) name the circumstances in which this explanation would predict the opposite; 5) rewrite it as something observable beforehand and checkable afterwards. Do not judge whether the explanation is right.
Site original
Chinese original
Replace these placeholders 1
Swap the bracketed parts for your own details before sending.
[explanation]
How to use
Explanatory power is not predictive power. In a review, ask what was visible at the time.
Try tweaking it
- Ask what evidence would overturn the judgement.
- Have it argue both sides with three reasons each.
What you should get
- A decision table: assumptions, evidence, counter-evidence
- A next action with an observable signal
Common mistakes
- Asking only "should I?" and getting equally valid answers both ways.
- Never asking for counter-examples, so you only hear support.
How to check the output
- It states what evidence would overturn the conclusion.
- Both sides are argued, with assumptions marked as such.
Where it works
- Good for: splitting a decision into assumptions, evidence and counter-cases, leaving the call to you.
- Watch out: ask what evidence would overturn the judgement, or you will only hear supporting reasons.