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
    Counting surface similarities between source and target d... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    Counting surface similarities between source and target domains does not capture the logical structure underlying the analogy.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A precise proof in the source domain reveals exactly which concepts and assumpti...Analogical arguments should be evaluated by articulating the proof structure of ...Knowing which features are critical allows a principled assessment of whether th...Pre-theoretic resemblances between domains are insufficient to validate an analo...
    +1 moreShow less
    Systematicity scores from connectionist representations do not identify which fe...

    Similar

    There must be a clear connection in the source domain between the know...86%Counting overall similarities between source and target domains is not...86%Each structural similarity between two domains contributes to the over...83%The analogy between source and target domains is rendered irrelevant o...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    To see how this works, consider Example 7 (Rectangles and boxes). In this analogical argument, the source domain is two-dimensional geometry: we know that of all rectangles with a fixed perimeter, the square has maximum area. The target domain is three-dimensional geometry: by analogy, we conjecture that of all boxes with a fixed surface area, the cube has maximum volume. This argument should be evaluated not by counting similarities, looking to pre-theoretic resemblances between rectangles an

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective