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
    Analogical reasoning can provide inductive support within... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Analogical reasoning can provide inductive support within Bayesian epistemology without incurring the logical difficulties of ampliative rules

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Analogical reasoning can be directed primarily toward prior probability assignments rather than confirmation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If analogical reasoning operates at the level of priors, it remains formally distinct from confirmation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets rule-based confirmation, not prior probability assignments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prior probability assignments are not epistemically unconstrained: they must themselves be justified by some rule or principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any principled constraint on priors that is sensitive to analogical similarity constitutes an ampliative rule in disguise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Fraassen's conditionalization objections apply to any diachronic commitment to structured prior-setting, not merely to confirmation rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's inductive logic programs showed that formalizing similarity-based priors inevitably embeds substantive metaphysical assumptions about natural kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Embedding such assumptions into a Bayesian framework does not dissolve the problem of induction but merely relocates it to the prior specification stage.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Analogical reasoning can be directed primarily toward prior probability assignme...Any principled constraint on priors that is sensitive to analogical similarity c...Carnap's inductive logic programs showed that formalizing similarity-based prior...Embedding such assumptions into a Bayesian framework does not dissolve the probl...
    +4 moreShow less
    If analogical reasoning operates at the level of priors, it remains formally dis...Prior probability assignments are not epistemically unconstrained: they must the...Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets rule-based confirmation, not prior p...Van Fraassen's conditionalization objections apply to any diachronic commitment ...

    Similar

    Any justification for inductive reasoning must appeal to either an ind...84%Bayesian inductive logic similarly provides rational rules for represe...82%Circular arguments can provide an acceptable justification for inducti...82%Additional premises can weaken or strengthen the inference, as is char...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    The criticism, made vivid by the tale of Bayesian Peter, is that these ‘ampliative’ rules are vulnerable to a Dutch Book. Adopting any such rule would lead us to acknowledge as fair a system of bets that foreseeably leads to certain loss. Any rule of this type for analogical reasoning appears to be vulnerable to van Fraassen’s objection. There appear to be at least three routes to avoiding these difficulties and finding a role for analogical arguments within Bayesian epistemology. First, ther
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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