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 should be evaluated by articulating the proof structure of the source domain and assessing whether critical features transfer to the target domain.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Many productive analogies in science and mathematics precede any formalized proof structure in the source domain, as Polya's heuristic account demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring an articulated proof structure imposes a post-hoc rationalization constraint that would have blocked historically fruitful analogical discoveries before their formalizations existed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Analogical reasoning is epistemically valuable precisely as a guide to inquiry prior to formal proof, not as a pale substitute for one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance shows that concepts can legitimately extend across domains through overlapping, non-transitive similarities rather than shared proof-critical features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no single set of features is logically critical across all instances of a concept, then identifying 'critical features' in the source domain presupposes an essentialism that many domains structurally lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Counting surface similarities between source and target domains does not capture the logical structure underlying the analogy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pre-theoretic resemblances between domains are insufficient to validate an analogical argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Systematicity scores from connectionist representations do not identify which features are logically critical to the source domain result.
      ?

      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.