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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.