Timeline for Is the argument by analogy logically consistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2023 at 4:32 | comment | added | Double Knot | Symmetry could be violated in nature as manifested by the wellknown parity breaking in quantum physics, and there’s no unfalsifiable physical theory of everything yet to prove that almost all phenomena in nature has to be reducible to a few simple recursive fundamental laws. Ergo based on our limited contingent experiences so far in this Saha world we cannot infer or induce the absolute induction of uniformity of nature to arbitrary things especially those with obviously high complexity such as a so-called mind, though such inference may be the best explanation so far in a posteriori sense… | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 10:24 | comment | added | Arti | If, instead of analogy, we use induction based on the principle of uniformity of nature and support it by the fact that we have no reason to violate symmetry or the principle of uniformity. In this case, it will be more reliable? If so, please show how this argument will look. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 9:51 | comment | added | Conifold | "If the premises are correct then the conclusion is correct" is true of formal arguments only. Nothing substantive can be proved by such arguments, they just recombine the premises. So people use informal arguments, by analogy is one of them, and those do not have such infallibility. Any analogy, by definition, is imperfect in some way, and it may turn out to be just the way that matters. Informal arguments provide, at best, only plausibility, and may well derive false conclusions from true premises. SEP cites arguments why this analogy is particularly imperfect, even for plausibility. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 7:13 | answer | added | Ted Wrigley | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 6:15 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | You are right: the argument is very very plausible. But it is an argument and not a proof. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 5:21 | comment | added | Double Knot | Argument from one's own analogy is naive (some would even call mind projection fallacy) and not unlike the famous private language argument wherefrom no others can check the said analogy in an objective way. Also in the case of existence of other mind such analogy is extending one’s knowledge from a single analogical case which may not be reliable. Lastly do you really know you yourself have a mind founded upon Descartes' dualistic cognito in the first place, not a p-zombie with phenomenal illusions under physicalist monism?... | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 1:49 | answer | added | causative | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 1:11 | history | asked | Arti | CC BY-SA 4.0 |