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
    Analogical reasoning can be justified by determination ru... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Analogical reasoning can be justified by determination rules without trivializing the analogical argument

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A determination rule specifies that the value of a target property Q is determined by a set of variables P_i
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two objects are indistinguishable on each of the determining variables P_i, they will have the same value for Q
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Knowledge of the source domain is necessary to derive the value of Q in the target domain from the determination rule alone
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A determination rule that fully specifies which variables determine Q already encodes the analogical inference, making the analogy itself epistemically redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the determination rule is known with sufficient precision to license the inference, the source case contributes no independent evidential weight beyond what the rule already supplies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's problem of projectibility shows that any two objects share infinitely many predicates, so no determination rule can non-arbitrarily privilege the relevant similarity dimensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without an independent account of which properties are projectable, the selection of determining variables P_i smuggles in the analogical conclusion rather than grounding it.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A determination rule specifies that the value of a target property Q is determin...A determination rule that fully specifies which variables determine Q already en...Goodman's problem of projectibility shows that any two objects share infinitely ...If the determination rule is known with sufficient precision to license the infe...
    +3 moreShow less
    If two objects are indistinguishable on each of the determining variables P_i, t...Knowledge of the source domain is necessary to derive the value of Q in the targ...Without an independent account of which properties are projectable, the selectio...

    Similar

    Establishing the plausibility of a determination rule is at least as d...91%Establishing the plausibility of a determination rule is at least as d...91%The determination rule analysis justifies analogical arguments without...88%For such cases, neither limiting analogical arguments to situations wi...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    The “determination rule” analysis provides a clear and simple justification for analogical reasoning. Note that, in contrast to the Aristotelian analysis via the generalization \(\forall x(P(x) \supset Q(x))\), a determination rule does not trivialize the analogical argument. Only by combining the rule with information about the source domain can we derive the value of \(Q(T)\). To illustrate by adapting one of the examples given by Russell and Davies (Example 16), let’s suppose that the value
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit