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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A normative theory offering principles for evaluating analogical arguments is still needed, even if computational models successfully model analogy construction.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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