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 No acceptable rule or set of rules for valid analogical inference has ever been formulated.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hesse's material analogy framework (1966) provides systematic criteria—causal relevance, similarity of structure—constituting a rule-governed account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rule need not be algorithmic or deductively certain to count as 'acceptable'; probabilistic inferential norms meet the standard for inductive logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The absence of a universally agreed-upon rule does not entail no acceptable rule exists; it may reflect philosophical disagreement, not logical impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Keynes's treatment of analogy in 'A Treatise on Probability' (1921) grounds analogical inference in a formal theory of evidential weight, constituting a serious candidate rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Despite the confidence with which particular analogical arguments are advanced, no plausible candidate inference rule has been proposed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This absence contrasts sharply with deductive reasoning and elementary forms of inductive reasoning such as induction by enumeration.
      ?

      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.