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
    The Aristotelian deductive analysis of analogical argumen... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Aristotelian deductive analysis of analogical arguments renders the source domain irrelevant to the conclusion.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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.On the Aristotelian deductive reconstruction, the generalization ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x)) must be established independently of any particular source case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A generalization established independently of S renders the inferential role of S purely heuristic, not logically constitutive of the argument's validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hempel's covering-law model confirms that once a lawlike generalization is in place, particular instantiating cases contribute nothing to the logical derivation of the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Keynes argued in his Treatise on Probability that analogical reasoning gains its epistemic force from the positive analogy between source and target, not from any derived universal law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Aristotelian reconstruction replaced that positive analogy with a universal generalization, it thereby eliminates the very feature—source-target similarity—that gives analogical inference its distinctive character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument form that eliminates the feature constitutive of its own category cannot preserve the source domain as epistemically relevant to the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.On the Aristotelian analysis, an analogical argument proceeds via the generalization ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x)).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.From the generalization and the premise P(T), Q(T) can be derived without any knowledge of the source domain S.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A generalization established independently of S renders the inferential role of ...An argument form that eliminates the feature constitutive of its own category ca...From the generalization and the premise P(T), Q(T) can be derived without any kn...Hempel's covering-law model confirms that once a lawlike generalization is in pl...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the Aristotelian reconstruction replaced that positive analogy with a univers...Keynes argued in his Treatise on Probability that analogical reasoning gains its...On the Aristotelian analysis, an analogical argument proceeds via the generaliza...On the Aristotelian deductive reconstruction, the generalization ∀x(P(x) ⊃ Q(x))...

    Similar

    Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not resolve the problem...85%The determination rule analysis justifies analogical arguments without...84%Recasting analogy as a deductive argument does not solve the problem o...83%Models and analogical arguments serve fundamentally different epistemi...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Analogical arguments support the hypothesis that in each of these cultures, rock art symbolizes hallucinogenic experiences. Currie examines criteria that focus on assumptions about stability of cultural traits and environment-culture relationships. Currie (2016, 2018) and Wylie (Wylie and Chapman 2016) also stress the importance of robustness reasoning that combines analogical arguments of moderate strength with other forms of evidence to yield strong conclusions. Practice-based approaches can
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit