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
    A reliable evaluative method must discriminate between pr... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Counting overall similarities between source and target domains is not a reliable method for evaluating analogical arguments.

    A reliable evaluative method must discriminate between projectible and non-projectible properties, a distinction that mere similarity counting cannot supply.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Projectible properties support inductive inference across time; similarity counting treats past and future cases identically, missing this asymmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Grue-like predicates fool similarity metrics by appearing similar to emeralds until a temporal threshold, yet fail to project meaningfully.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Natural kinds (gold, water) project reliably because they track real causal structures; pure similarity counting cannot access these structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The projectibility distinction itself relies on prior judgments about which properties matter—it doesn't solve the problem, it relocates it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Similarity counting, when refined to weight relevant features contextually, can effectively discriminate projectible cases without invoking new metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Appeal to projectibility risks circularity: properties project because they're projectible, explaining nothing about why some properties succeed inductively.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Appeal to projectibility risks circularity: properties project because they're p...Counting overall similarities between source and target domains is not a reliabl...Grue-like predicates fool similarity metrics by appearing similar to emeralds un...Natural kinds (gold, water) project reliably because they track real causal stru...
    +3 moreShow less
    Projectible properties support inductive inference across time; similarity count...Similarity counting, when refined to weight relevant features contextually, can ...The projectibility distinction itself relies on prior judgments about which prop...

    Details

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