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
    Q(T) — the target domain shares property Q with the sourc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Q(T) — the target domain shares property Q with the source domain

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The source domain S has property P: P(S)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The target domain T has property P: P(T)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The source domain S has property Q: Q(S)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The universal generalization ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x)) presupposes a closed, uniform ontology that Nelson Goodman's grue paradox shows cannot be assumed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Analogical inference depends on which predicates are projectible, and projectibility is not derivable from shared properties alone but from entrenched linguistic practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore P4 smuggles in an unwarranted assumption that the chosen property P is the kind that lawfully licenses projection to Q across domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance doctrine entails that shared property P between S and T may reflect surface grammar rather than a genuinely common structural feature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the analogical bridge rests on a merely nominal property, the inference to Q(T) commits the fallacy Hesse calls 'neutral analogy overreach' in her material inference framework.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Analogical inference depends on which predicates are projectible, and projectibi...For all x, if x has property P then x has property Q: ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x))The source domain S has property P: P(S)The source domain S has property Q: Q(S)
    +5 moreShow less
    The target domain T has property P: P(T)The universal generalization ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x)) presupposes a closed, uniform ontol...Therefore P4 smuggles in an unwarranted assumption that the chosen property P is...When the analogical bridge rests on a merely nominal property, the inference to ...Wittgenstein's family resemblance doctrine entails that shared property P betwee...

    Similar

    The target domain T has property P: P(T)89%The source domain S has property P: P(S)87%The source domain S has property Q: Q(S)87%Source domain S and target domain T are similar in certain known respe...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    An early version of the deductivist approach is exemplified by Aristotle’s treatment of the argument from example (§3.2), the paradeigma. On this analysis, an analogical argument between source domain \(S\) and target \(T\) begins with the assumption of positive analogy \(P(S)\) and \(P(T)\), as well as the additional information \(Q(S)\). It proceeds via the generalization \(\forall x(P(x) \supset Q(x))\) to the conclusion: \(Q(T)\). Provided we can treat that intermediate generalization as a
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit