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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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