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 proposed analogical inference rule (5) is unacceptabl... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The proposed analogical inference rule (5) is unacceptable as a general rule.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    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.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A valid inference rule must generate epistemic warrant across all substitution instances, not merely some privileged subset of well-chosen cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule (5) permits substitution instances where the positive analogy consists entirely of formally shared but materially irrelevant properties, as Achinstein's swan-segment case demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any rule that licenses epistemically inert inferences in even one class of cases fails the normative standard required of a general inference rule, by the same logic that defeats affirming the consequent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hempel's criterion of adequacy for confirmation requires that evidential support be sensitive to the content-specific relevance of shared properties, not merely their formal co-instantiation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule (5) is insensitive to whether shared properties in the positive analogy are projectible in Goodman's sense — it treats 'grue'-like structural similarities as equivalent to causally grounded ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule that cannot discriminate projectible from non-projectible analogical bases systematically underdetermines when inductive support is genuine, rendering it unfit as a general rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The only substantive requirement introduced by rule (5) is that there be a nonempty positive analogy between source and target domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There exist analogical arguments satisfying this condition that establish no prima facie plausibility and no measure of support for their conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Achinstein's formal analogy between swans and line segments — mapping 'has the same color as' to 'is congruent with' on the basis of shared reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity — satisfies rule (5) but clearly establishes nothing about swans or line segments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A rule that cannot discriminate projectible from non-projectible analogical base...A valid inference rule must generate epistemic warrant across all substitution i...Achinstein's formal analogy between swans and line segments — mapping 'has the s...Any rule that licenses epistemically inert inferences in even one class of cases...
    +5 moreShow less
    Hempel's criterion of adequacy for confirmation requires that evidential support...Rule (5) is insensitive to whether shared properties in the positive analogy are...Rule (5) permits substitution instances where the positive analogy consists enti...The only substantive requirement introduced by rule (5) is that there be a nonem...There exist analogical arguments satisfying this condition that establish no pri...

    Similar

    A simple, universal rule of analogical inference is not viable88%No acceptable rule or set of rules for valid analogical inference has ...86%The search for a simple, universal formal rule of analogical inference...84%A viable rule of analogical inference would need to be supplemented wi...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Argumentation theorists also make use of tools such as speech act theory (Bermejo-Luque 2012), argumentation schemes and dialogue types (Macagno et al. 2017; Walton and Hyra 2018) to distinguish different types of analogical argument. Arguments by analogy are also discussed in the vast literature on scientific models and model-based reasoning, following the lead of Hesse (1966). Bailer-Jones (2002) draws a helpful distinction between analogies and models. ” In brief, models are tools for predic
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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