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
    There must be a clear connection in the source domain bet... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A good analogical argument must satisfy both a prior association condition and a potential for generalization condition.

    There must be a clear connection in the source domain between the known similarities (positive analogy) and the further similarity projected to hold in the target domain (hypothetical analogy).

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    analogy(Contrasted with homology, which concerns correspondence due to common ancestry.)
    A relation based on functional similarity between structures, which can occur despite different evolutionary origins.
    hypothetical analogy(Bartha's articulation model)
    The further similarity that is projected or conjectured to hold in the target domain on the basis of the positive analogy.
    positive analogy

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    (Analogical reasoning structure)
    The shared properties P(S) and P(T) that hold in both the source domain S and the target domain T, forming the basis of an analogical argument
    source domain(Formal structure of analogical arguments)
    The domain S from which the analogical inference is drawn; a set of objects, properties, relations and functions together with a set of accepted statements about those objects, properties, relations and functions.
    target domain(Formal structure of analogical arguments)
    The domain T about which an inference is being made by analogy with the source domain; has the same formal structure as the source domain.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    A good analogical argument must satisfy both a prior association condition and a...There must be reason to think that the same kind of connection could obtain in t...

    Similar

    Counting surface similarities between source and target domains does n...86%Each structural similarity between two domains contributes to the over...86%The greater the overall similarity between two domains, the stronger t...86%Material analogy consists of observable, pre-theoretic similarities re...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Orderly structures emerge out of random low-level processes and the program produces plausible solutions. Copycat thus shows that analogy-making can be modeled as a process akin to perception, even if the program employs mechanisms distinct from those in human perception. The multiconstraint theory and Copycat share the idea that analogical cognition involves cognitive processes that operate below the level of abstract reasoning. Both computational models—to the extent that they are capable of

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective