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
    Analogue confirmation is not vulnerable to the Dutch Book... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Analogue confirmation is not vulnerable to the Dutch Book logical difficulties that affect ampliative rules

    Skepticism
    ?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.Analogue confirmation relies on new empirical evidence obtained from the analogue system
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets probability revision without new evidence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inference based on new evidence is not an ampliative rule in the problematic sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Analogue confirmation requires a structural mapping judgment that itself lacks evidential grounding and constitutes an ampliative inferential step.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Fraassen's conditionalization objection applies to any rule that licenses probability increases beyond what strict conditionalization warrants, including mapping-based inferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The selection of which analogical features are projectible versus incidental cannot be determined by the analogue evidence alone, reintroducing the ampliative gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Salmon and Reichenbach established that the problem of induction infects not just rule-following but the prior probabilities assigned to structural similarities between systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the prior probability that the analogue system shares relevant causal structure with the target is itself unjustified, evidence from the analogue cannot rescue the inference from Dutch Book vulnerability.
      ?

      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

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Analogue confirmation relies on new empirical evidence obtained from the analogu...Analogue confirmation requires a structural mapping judgment that itself lacks e...If the prior probability that the analogue system shares relevant causal structu...Inference based on new evidence is not an ampliative rule in the problematic sen...
    +4 moreShow less
    Salmon and Reichenbach established that the problem of induction infects not jus...The selection of which analogical features are projectible versus incidental can...Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets probability revision without new evi...Van Fraassen's conditionalization objection applies to any rule that licenses pr...

    Similar

    Analogical reasoning can provide inductive support within Bayesian epi...81%Inference based on new evidence is not an ampliative rule in the probl...81%The additivity constraint on inductive support does not apply when C a...78%Van Fraassen's objection applies only to rule-governed ampliative infe...78%

    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