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 determination rule analysis justifies analogical arguments without trivializing them by making the source domain irrelevant.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A determination rule must itself be established by induction or analogy from prior cases, creating a regress that presupposes the validity it purports to ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hempel's theoretic-concept problem shows that nomological rules underdetermine which properties are projectible, so the rule selection already encodes analogical assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The source domain is therefore doing hidden epistemic work in justifying the rule, not merely illustrating it, contradicting the claim of non-trivialization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's grue paradox demonstrates that for any target property Q, infinitely many determination rules are consistent with source-domain evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without an independent criterion for selecting the correct rule, the analyst must appeal to similarity judgments between source and target to privilege one rule over rivals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This circularity means the determination rule analysis covertly depends on the analogical reasoning it was introduced to replace.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A determination rule specifies that the value of Q is determined by the values of P1, …, Pm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If source S and target T agree on all values Pi, then Q(T) = Q(S) follows validly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Knowledge of the source domain is necessary: Q(T) cannot be derived from the determination rule alone.
      ?

      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.