On Aug 29, 7:34 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> marc.geddes wrote:
> > No, I think the buck stops with analogical reasoning, since no form of
> > reasoning is more powerful. Analogical reasoning can produce priors
> > and handle knowledge representation (via categorization),
> Really?  How does analogy assign probabilities or degrees of belief?  
> What degree of belief does it assign to "Global warming is caused by
> burning fossil fuel" for example?

Analogical reasoning is based on similarity measures (degrees of
similarities between two concepts), it remains to be seen how to
convert this to probabilities.

> But obviously reasoning, per se, is at least as powerful as analogical
> reasoning, since it includes analogical as well as axiomatic,
> probabilistic, metaphorical, intuitionist, etc.  My point is that you
> have not given any definition of analogical reasoning.  By leaving it
> vague and undefined you allow yourself to alternately identify every
> kind of reasoning as analogical - or a special case of analogical.  
> Which isn't wrong - but it doesn't have much content either.
> Brent

Sure, that's a good point, but that's because analogical reasoning has
not yet been well developed, since everyone has focused on Bayesian
reasoning... the point of this post was to show that there's a
neglected alternative.

There's are tentative definitions of analogical reasoning in the
literature, for instance ‘Analogies as Categorization’ (Atkins)

It remains to be seen how it gets developed.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to