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 Analogical arguments cannot provide Bayesian confirmation of a hypothesis

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian confirmation requires that evidence proposition E raises the conditional probability of hypothesis H relative to background knowledge K
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The information contained in an analogical argument typically cannot be encapsulated in a single evidence proposition E
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if such a proposition E can be formulated, the information it contains is already part of background knowledge K, making E·K equivalent to K and leaving Pr(H|E·K) equal to Pr(H|K)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.