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 need not be algorithmic or deductively certain to ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→No acceptable rule or set of rules for valid analogical inference has ever been formulated.

    A rule need not be algorithmic or deductively certain to count as 'acceptable'; probabilistic inferential norms meet the standard for inductive logic.

    ?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.Inductive reasoning is essential to empirical inquiry, yet deductive certainty is impossible in most real-world contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rule's acceptability should match its domain: probabilistic norms are appropriate for uncertain domains like science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Excluding probabilistic rules would eliminate the rational standards actually governing successful scientific inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic norms require a well-defined probability model, which itself needs justification—pushing the problem back a level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without algorithmic or deductive grounding, probabilistic rules risk collapsing into pragmatism rather than logic proper.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting vague probabilistic standards as 'rules' conflates useful heuristics with genuine normative constraints on reasoning.
      ?

      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

    A rule's acceptability should match its domain: probabilistic norms are appropri...Accepting vague probabilistic standards as 'rules' conflates useful heuristics w...Excluding probabilistic rules would eliminate the rational standards actually go...Inductive reasoning is essential to empirical inquiry, yet deductive certainty i...
    +3 moreShow less
    No acceptable rule or set of rules for valid analogical inference has ever been ...Probabilistic norms require a well-defined probability model, which itself needs...Without algorithmic or deductive grounding, probabilistic rules risk collapsing ...

    Details

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