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 theory of analogical reasoning that conflates psycholog... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There is room for both computational and traditional philosophical models of analogical reasoning.

    A theory of analogical reasoning that conflates psychological modeling with logical justification commits a naturalistic fallacy about inference norms.

    ?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.Inference norms are prescriptive (how we should reason), while psychological models describe actual cognition (how we do reason).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deriving 'ought' from 'is' without additional normative premises violates Hume's is-ought distinction and commits a naturalistic fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Analogical reasoning's validity depends on logical structure, not whether humans naturally deploy such reasoning patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Naturalistic fallacies require illicit derivation of norms from facts; showing how minds *actually* analogize can inform justified norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inference norms are partly constitutive of human rationality itself—what counts as 'correct' reasoning is grounded in our cognitive nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between psychological modeling and logical justification isn't always sharp; cognitive adequacy is evidence for normative validity.
      ?

      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

    No other argument is better1 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Analogical reasoning's validity depends on logical structure, not whether humans...Deriving 'ought' from 'is' without additional normative premises violates Hume's...Inference norms are partly constitutive of human rationality itself—what counts ...Inference norms are prescriptive (how we should reason), while psychological mod...
    +3 moreShow less
    Naturalistic fallacies require illicit derivation of norms from facts; showing h...The distinction between psychological modeling and logical justification isn't a...There is room for both computational and traditional philosophical models of ana...

    Details

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