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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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