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 project of formalizing analogical inference in terms of one or more simple formal schemata is doomed.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal probabilistic frameworks, such as structure-mapping theory (Gentner) and Bayesian analogical inference models, have demonstrably increased predictive precision over purely intuitive analogical reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The residual role of intuitive judgment in applying a formal schema does not invalidate the schema, since all formal systems, including deductive logic, require non-formal judgment in application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The existence of partial formalization constitutes progress toward adequacy, not evidence that formalization is 'doomed', as Polya's work on plausible reasoning shows cumulative refinement is possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hesse's material analogy framework and Bartha's articulation model successfully distinguish valid from invalid analogical inferences using explicit structural criteria grounded in prior theoretical commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates the difficulty of complete formalization with impossibility, committing a fallacy of inference that Carnap's program for inductive logic explicitly warned against when critics declared inductive formalization hopeless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If analogical reasoning is required to conform only to a simple formal schema, the restriction is too permissive and authorizes inferences that clearly should not pass muster.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Attempts to remedy this by developing more elaborate formal templates always leave some part of the analysis that must be handled intuitively, without guidance from strict formal rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No elaboration of formal templates has proven sufficient to eliminate the need for intuitive judgment.
      ?

      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.