Timeline for Is the argument by analogy logically consistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2023 at 16:04 | comment | added | Speakpigeon | Whether we can check that dogs really have a mind is irrelevant. If we had to be able to check that the conclusion is true to be certain of the validity of the argument, logic would be totally useless. We would just leave logic alone and check directly our facts. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 16:02 | comment | added | Speakpigeon | "It's like saying "dogs and tables both have four legs, therefore tables can think like dogs"" But this is the point of a reasoning by analogy. If tables don't think, the argument is fallacious, but the analogy and the reasoning by analogy don't disappear. That both dogs and tables have four legs is too poor an analogy to produce good inferences, but from the better analogy between humans and dogs we infer very reasonably that dogs have a mind. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 15:37 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Speakpigeon: But the specific analogy asked for here is that other people are like me in various ways, therefore other people have minds like me. A table/dog comparison involves two objects, but this self/other comparison involves (what the solipsist sees as) an object and a subject. It's like saying "dogs and tables both have four legs, therefore tables can think like dogs". | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 15:26 | comment | added | Speakpigeon | "No similarity-class can be created without violating the first principle" I don't understand your point. Assuming a solipsist could exist to begin with, he could deny the existence of other minds and still be able to see analogies, for example between a dog and a table because they both have four legs. | |
| Sep 8, 2023 at 7:13 | history | answered | Ted Wrigley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |