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
    Mill's methods and Bayesian confirmation theory provide g... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arguments conforming to schema (4) without proving too much

    Mill's methods and Bayesian confirmation theory provide general frameworks for inductive reasoning without licensing all inductive arguments.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill's methods (agreement, difference, etc.) identify causal relationships through systematic elimination, avoiding arbitrary inductive leaps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian confirmation requires explicit prior probabilities and likelihood ratios, which constrains inference to rational, mathematically defensible arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both frameworks reject crude induction (all observed swans are white) by demanding either systematic variation or probabilistic updating against evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill's methods presuppose causal closure and no hidden confounds, assumptions often violated in complex systems but never fully vindicated independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian theory merely transfers the problem: choosing priors is subjective, so it licenses inferences its users deem reasonable without principled discrimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both frameworks remain silent on non-causal inductive patterns (analogical, abductive, statistical) that reasoning actually relies upon in practice.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arguments con...Bayesian confirmation requires explicit prior probabilities and likelihood ratio...Bayesian theory merely transfers the problem: choosing priors is subjective, so ...Both frameworks reject crude induction (all observed swans are white) by demandi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Both frameworks remain silent on non-causal inductive patterns (analogical, abdu...Mill's methods (agreement, difference, etc.) identify causal relationships throu...Mill's methods presuppose causal closure and no hidden confounds, assumptions of...

    Details

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