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
    Systematicity scores from connectionist representations d... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Analogical arguments should be evaluated by articulating the proof structure of the source domain and assessing whether critical features transfer to the target domain.

    Systematicity scores from connectionist representations do not identify which features are logically critical to the source domain result.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language2 linkedSkepticism2 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    A precise proof in the source domain reveals exactly which concepts and assumpti...Analogical arguments should be evaluated by articulating the proof structure of ...Counting surface similarities between source and target domains does not capture...Knowing which features are critical allows a principled assessment of whether th...
    +1 moreShow less
    Pre-theoretic resemblances between domains are insufficient to validate an analo...

    Similar

    Analogical arguments should be evaluated by articulating the proof str...73%Evaluating the argument requires identifying the critical features of ...73%It is plausible that target domain T has feature Q* (analogous to feat...73%Systematicity cannot account for which features of both domains are re...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    To see how this works, consider Example 7 (Rectangles and boxes). In this analogical argument, the source domain is two-dimensional geometry: we know that of all rectangles with a fixed perimeter, the square has maximum area. The target domain is three-dimensional geometry: by analogy, we conjecture that of all boxes with a fixed surface area, the cube has maximum volume. This argument should be evaluated not by counting similarities, looking to pre-theoretic resemblances between rectangles an

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective