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 solve ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not solve the problem of justification for analogical reasoning

    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 reformulation of analogical arguments requires an explicit universal premise that the original analogical inference deliberately leaves open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hempel's theorization of confirmation shows that universal premises in empirical reasoning inherit the very underdetermination problems they were meant to resolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A justificatory regress that deductive reconstruction was meant to terminate is instead displaced one level upward, leaving the original problem structurally intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's 'new riddle of induction' demonstrates that formalizing inductive patterns into rules generates entrenchment problems not present in the informal inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any determination rule licensing an analogical inference must privilege certain predicates as projectible, yet this selection itself requires analogical or inductive support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The deductive recast therefore presupposes the legitimacy of analogical reasoning in order to certify the rule that is supposed to replace it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The problem of justification reappears as the need to state and establish the plausibility of 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

    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

    Related

    A justificatory regress that deductive reconstruction was meant to terminate is ...Any determination rule licensing an analogical inference must privilege certain ...Deductive reformulation of analogical arguments requires an explicit universal p...Establishing the plausibility of a determination rule is at least as difficult a...
    +4 moreShow less
    Goodman's 'new riddle of induction' demonstrates that formalizing inductive patt...Hempel's theorization of confirmation shows that universal premises in empirical...The deductive recast therefore presupposes the legitimacy of analogical reasonin...The problem of justification reappears as the need to state and establish the pl...

    Similar

    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not resolve the problem...98%The Clustering Postulate fails to adequately justify analogical reason...87%A general justification of analogical reasoning cannot support all arg...86%Recasting analogy as a deductive argument requires stating and establi...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. 2 Inductive justification Some philosophers have attempted to portray, and justify, analogical reasoning in terms of some well-understood inductive argument pattern.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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