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 normative theory offering principles for evaluating ana... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A normative theory offering principles for evaluating analogical arguments is still needed, even if computational models successfully model analogy construction.

    No other argument is betterTruth & 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.Even if the construction and recognition of analogies are largely a matter of perception, this does not eliminate the need for subsequent critical evaluation of analogical inferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.High-level debates about analogical arguments in mathematics, physics, philosophy, and law require reasoning that bears little resemblance to the computational processes of ACME or Copycat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Computational models like ACME operationalize structural alignment constraints that already function as normative principles governing analogical validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holyoak and Thagard's systematicity and structural consistency criteria, embedded in ACME, constitute a descriptive-normative theory, dissolving the gap the claim presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations suggest that no explicit normative theory can fully determine correct application of analogical principles across novel cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If explicit normative principles cannot close the justificatory gap in analogical reasoning, computational models capturing tacit expert judgment may provide stronger evaluative guidance than formal theory.
      ?

      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

    Truth & KnowledgeNo other argument is better

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Computational models like ACME operationalize structural alignment constraints t...Even if the construction and recognition of analogies are largely a matter of pe...High-level debates about analogical arguments in mathematics, physics, philosoph...Holyoak and Thagard's systematicity and structural consistency criteria, embedde...
    +2 moreShow less
    If explicit normative principles cannot close the justificatory gap in analogica...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations suggest that no explicit normative ...

    Similar

    Traditional philosophical models provide normative principles needed f...85%Individual analogical arguments remain important for scrutiny and crit...82%A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arg...82%Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not solve the problem o...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Orderly structures emerge out of random low-level processes and the program produces plausible solutions. Copycat thus shows that analogy-making can be modeled as a process akin to perception, even if the program employs mechanisms distinct from those in human perception. The multiconstraint theory and Copycat share the idea that analogical cognition involves cognitive processes that operate below the level of abstract reasoning. Both computational models—to the extent that they are capable of
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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