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
    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not resolv... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not resolve the problem of justifying analogical arguments.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Deductive validity merely transfers justificatory burden to premises, never eliminating it—as Carroll's tortoise regress demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any universal premise bridging source and target domains in a deductive reconstruction must itself be inductively warranted by analogical reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This circularity means deductive recasting presupposes the very inferential practice it purports to ground, leaving justification untouched.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hempel's theorist's dilemma shows that intermediate theoretical terms either reduce to observables or remain irreducibly theoretical—neither option grounds deductive form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determination rules functioning as bridge laws in analogical deductions face the same underdetermination problems Quine identified for all theoretical posits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Recasting analogy as a deductive argument requires stating and establishing a determination rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Establishing the plausibility of a determination rule is at least as difficult as justifying the original analogical argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the problem of justification reappears in a new form rather than being solved.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Any universal premise bridging source and target domains in a deductive reconstr...Deductive validity merely transfers justificatory burden to premises, never elim...Determination rules functioning as bridge laws in analogical deductions face the...Establishing the plausibility of a determination rule is at least as difficult a...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hempel's theorist's dilemma shows that intermediate theoretical terms either red...Recasting analogy as a deductive argument requires stating and establishing a de...Therefore, the problem of justification reappears in a new form rather than bein...This circularity means deductive recasting presupposes the very inferential prac...

    Similar

    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not solve the problem o...98%Recasting analogy as a deductive argument requires stating and establi...87%Models and analogical arguments serve fundamentally different epistemi...86%The Clustering Postulate fails to adequately justify analogical reason...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument may help to bring out background assumptions, but it makes little headway with the problem of justification. That problem re-appears as the need to state and establish the plausibility of a determination rule, and that is at least as difficult as justifying the original analogical argument.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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