David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 104 (2):285 - 297 (1995)
Many accounts of analogy based on sentential semantics owe their continued popularity more to a lack of theoretical specificity than to their superior explicative power. I examine a recent attempt to remedy this situation.Conclusion: Once the sentential semantics account of analogy is spelled out in sufficient detail to permit its systematic application to a variety of cases, it quickly becomes apparent why it must fail, and why we should give preference to a multi-constraint theory of cognitive process instead.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Clément Vidal (2010). Computational and Biological Analogies for Understanding Fine-Tuned Parameters in Physics. Foundations of Science 15 (4):375 - 393.
Eric Dietrich (2010). Analogical Insight: Toward Unifying Categorization and Analogy. Cognitive Processing 11 (4):331-.
Cameron Shelley (1999). Multiple Analogies in Archaeology. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):579-605.
Corin Gurr, John Lee & Keith Stenning (1998). Theories of Diagrammatic Reasoning: Distinguishing Component Problems. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 8 (4):533-557.
Peter Achinstein (1964). Models, Analogies, and Theories. Philosophy of Science 31 (4):328-350.
Dirk Schlimm (2008). Two Ways of Analogy: Extending the Study of Analogies to Mathematical Domains. Philosophy of Science 75 (2):178-200.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #241,511 of 1,696,562 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #142,346 of 1,696,562 )
How can I increase my downloads?