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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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