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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42