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
    Rule (5) — assigning non-zero degree of support to every ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Rule (5) — assigning non-zero degree of support to every similarity between two domains — must be supplemented with relevance considerations to be viable as a rule of analogical inference.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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.Carnap's inductive logic shows that any shared predicate between domains carries non-zero probabilistic weight prior to relevance screening.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relevance itself is an empirical, revisable judgment—what appears irrelevant (color of swans) has historically proven predictive in unforeseen contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule assigning zero weight to 'irrelevant' similarities would require a completed relevance theory as prerequisite, which no adequate theory yet provides.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's method of agreement treats any co-occurring property as a candidate cause until eliminated, mirroring Rule (5)'s inclusive assignment of non-zero support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Restricting Rule (5) by pre-filtering similarities presupposes the very analogical conclusion it is meant to generate, creating a circularity Hesse identified in confirmational reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Not every similarity between two domains increases the probability of an analogical conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not every difference between two domains decreases it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some similarities are known to be utterly irrelevant to the hypothetical analogy (e.g., swans grouped by color is irrelevant to whether congruent geometric lines are grouped).
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    Analogical inference(the main subject of the philosophical statement)
    A type of reasoning where you conclude that if two things are similar in some ways, they're probably similar in other ways too—like arguing that because a new smartphone is like the previous model in design, it probably works similarly.
    Viable(describing whether a rule can actually function well)
    Capable of working or being practical in real situations; feasible and effective.
    degree of support(refers to how much evidence backs up a claim)
    How much weight or credibility you give to an argument or piece of evidence—the stronger the support, the more confident you should be in a conclusion.
    non-zero(technical way of saying 'some' instead of 'zero')
    Any amount greater than zero; in other words, some amount rather than none at all.
    relevance considerations(what's needed to make analogical reasoning actually work)
    Asking whether the similarities you've found actually matter to your conclusion—just because two things are alike in one way doesn't mean all their similarities apply to what you're trying to prove.
    similarity between two domains(the basis for drawing an analogy)
    Shared features or characteristics between two different areas, situations, or fields of knowledge that allow you to compare them.

    Related

    A rule assigning zero weight to 'irrelevant' similarities would require a comple...Carnap's inductive logic shows that any shared predicate between domains carries...Mill's method of agreement treats any co-occurring property as a candidate cause...Not every difference between two domains decreases it.
    +6 moreShow less
    Not every similarity between two domains increases the probability of an analogi...Relevance depends on subject matter, historical context, and logical details par...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Yet it would be absurd to find positive support from this analogy for the idea that we are likely to find congruent lines clustered in groups of two or more, just because swans of the same color are commonly found in groups. The positive analogy is antecedently known to be irrelevant to the hypothetical analogy. In such a case, the analogical inference should be utterly rejected. Yet rule (5) would wrongly assign non-zero degree of support. To generalize the difficulty: not every similarity inc
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Relevance itself is an empirical, revisable judgment—what appears irrelevant (co...
    Restricting Rule (5) by pre-filtering similarities presupposes the very analogic...
    Rule (5) wrongly assigns non-zero degree of support even when the positive analo...
    Some similarities are known to be utterly irrelevant to the hypothetical analogy...

    Similar

    Pre-theoretic resemblances between domains are insufficient to validat...85%Each structural similarity between two domains contributes to the over...84%Hesse requires that acceptable analogical arguments include observable...84%The greater the overall similarity between two domains, the stronger t...84%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit