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
    The analogical argument's epistemic force is proportional... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The analogical argument for other minds is significantly weaker when applied to members of another species than when applied to other humans.

    The analogical argument's epistemic force is proportional to the structural overlap between the reference case (oneself) and the target case, as Davidson's principle of interpretive charity presupposes shared propositional attitudes.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Davidson
    # Davidson Davidson most commonly refers to **Donald Davidson** (1917-2003), an influential American philosopher known for his work on the philosophy of mind and language. He developed important theories about how our thoughts connect to the physical world and how we understand meaning in language and communication. His ideas have shaped modern philosophy by challenging the view that the mind is completely separate from physical reality.
    Epistemic force(as used in epistemology)
    The power or strength of an argument or claim to convince us that something is true or worth believing.
    Reference case(the starting point of an analogical argument)
    The example or situation you already know about and understand well—in this sentence, it's yourself and your own mind.
    Structural overlap(what determines how good an analogical argument is)
    The similarities in how two things are organized or put together; the more ways two situations match, the more structural overlap they have.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Target case(what you're trying to figure out or explain using analogy)
    The new situation or person you're trying to understand or make a claim about by comparing it to the reference case.
    analogical argument(Formal characterization of argument from analogy)
    An ampliative argument of the form: S is similar to T in certain known respects; S has some further feature Q; therefore T also has feature Q or some feature Q* similar to Q. The conclusion is not guaranteed to follow from the premises.
    principle of interpretive charity(as used in philosophy of interpretation and understanding ancient texts)
    The idea that when trying to understand someone else's beliefs or practices, you should interpret them in the most reasonable and favorable way possible, rather than assuming they were confused or wrong.
    propositional attitudes(Fodor's 1980 reply to Searle)
    Mental states characteristic of an organism that has a brain, such as beliefs and desires, which computational symbol manipulation alone is insufficient to produce.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    The analogical argument for other minds is significantly weaker when applied to ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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