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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.