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 success-based justification of Pythagorean analogical reasoning is inadequate

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The success-based justification requires determining what counts as a similar strategy
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determining what counts as a similar strategy requires isolating the features of successful Pythagorean analogies
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No one has yet provided a satisfactory scheme characterizing successful analogical arguments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hesse's network model shows analogical success depends on relational structure, not surface similarity, making no single scheme sufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pythagorean analogies span music, cosmology, and arithmetic with incompatible structural bases, so no unified success criterion is formulable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a unified criterion, success-based justification collapses into post-hoc rationalization of cases already deemed successful by other means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's grue problem demonstrates that any predicate can anchor a projection, making 'successful strategy' an entrenchment artifact, not an epistemic achievement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If success is itself theory-laden, then justifying analogical reasoning by appeal to past success is viciously circular in the manner Sextus Empiricus identified in criterion-based justification.
      ?

      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.