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 rule assigning zero weight to 'irrelevant' similarities... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Rule (5) — assigning non-zero degree of support to every similarity between two domains — must be supplemented with relevance considerations to be viable as a rule of analogical inference.

    A rule assigning zero weight to 'irrelevant' similarities would require a completed relevance theory as prerequisite, which no adequate theory yet provides.

    ?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.Relevance is context-dependent and multifaceted, making it resistant to complete formal specification without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical attempts at relevance theories (conceptual spaces, feature-matching) each face counterexamples, supporting the incompleteness claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Assigning zero weight without criteria risks arbitrary exclusion and may collapse reasoning into mere stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Practical relevance judgments work reasonably well without complete theory, suggesting adequacy isn't an all-or-nothing requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates 'complete formal theory' with 'usable relevance criteria,' but domain-specific heuristics suffice for most purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding perfect theory before action creates paralyzing perfectionism; approximate relevance frameworks are pragmatically defensible.
      ?

      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 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Assigning zero weight without criteria risks arbitrary exclusion and may collaps...Demanding perfect theory before action creates paralyzing perfectionism; approxi...Historical attempts at relevance theories (conceptual spaces, feature-matching) ...Practical relevance judgments work reasonably well without complete theory, sugg...
    +3 moreShow less
    Relevance is context-dependent and multifaceted, making it resistant to complete...Rule (5) — assigning non-zero degree of support to every similarity between two ...The claim conflates 'complete formal theory' with 'usable relevance criteria,' b...

    Details

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