Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot su... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arguments that conform to the abstract analogical schema without proving too much.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Generality requires an abstract characterization of analogical arguments such that many analogical arguments conforming to the schema are bad arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A justification that supports every argument conforming to the schema would thereby endorse bad arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A justification schema need not endorse every instantiation; formal logic justifies modus ponens without endorsing every argument using it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The standard for 'proving too much' applies to content-neutral rules, but analogical reasoning schemas are inherently content-sensitive and self-limiting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hempel's account of inductive systematization shows that general epistemic justifications can incorporate internal criteria that screen out weak instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's methods provide a general justification for causal inference without endorsing spurious correlations, establishing a precedent for discriminating general schemas.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of bad analogical arguments establishes the need for evaluative criteria within a general justification, not the impossibility of one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A justification schema need not endorse every instantiation; formal logic justif...A justification that supports every argument conforming to the schema would ther...Generality requires an abstract characterization of analogical arguments such th...Hempel's account of inductive systematization shows that general epistemic justi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill's methods provide a general justification for causal inference without endo...The existence of bad analogical arguments establishes the need for evaluative cr...The standard for 'proving too much' applies to content-neutral rules, but analog...

    Similar

    A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arg...96%Any general justification of analogical reasoning must first specify a...91%If analogical reasoning is required to conform only to a simple formal...90%If the only legitimate form of analogical reasoning is one most analog...89%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Analogical arguments support the hypothesis that in each of these cultures, rock art symbolizes hallucinogenic experiences. Currie examines criteria that focus on assumptions about stability of cultural traits and environment-culture relationships. Currie (2016, 2018) and Wylie (Wylie and Chapman 2016) also stress the importance of robustness reasoning that combines analogical arguments of moderate strength with other forms of evidence to yield strong conclusions. Practice-based approaches can
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit