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
    Making explicit analogical arguments in favour of a parad... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Individual analogical arguments remain important for scrutiny and critical assessment of theoretical models even at the heuristic level

    Making explicit analogical arguments in favour of a paradigm enables the philosophical assessment of competing theoretical models

    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

    2 topics

    Skepticism2 linkedCausation

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked

    Related

    Individual analogical arguments remain important for scrutiny and critical asses...Plausibility arguments at the heuristic level are not immune to scrutiny and cri...The philosopher of physics' task includes providing exactly this kind of assessm...

    Similar

    Individual analogical arguments remain important for scrutiny and crit...83%Traditional philosophical models provide normative principles needed f...80%Models and analogical arguments serve fundamentally different epistemi...80%There is room for both computational and traditional philosophical mod...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    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