Determination, uniformity, and relevance: normative criteria for generalization and reasoning by analogy

In David H. Helman (ed.), Analogical Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 227-250 (1988)
Authors
Todd Davies
Stanford University
Abstract
This paper defines the form of prior knowledge that is required for sound inferences by analogy and single-instance generalizations, in both logical and probabilistic reasoning. In the logical case, the first order determination rule defined in Davies (1985) is shown to solve both the justification and non-redundancy problems for analogical inference. The statistical analogue of determination that is put forward is termed 'uniformity'. Based on the semantics of determination and uniformity, a third notion of "relevance" is defined, both logically and probabilistically. The statistical relevance of one function in determining another is put forward as a way of defining the value of information: The statistical relevance of a function F to a function G is the absolute value of the change in one's information about the value of G afforded by specifying the value of F. This theory provides normative justifications for conclusions projected by analogy from one case to another, and for generalization from an instance to a rule. The soundness of such conclusions, in either the logical or the probabilistic case, can be identified with the extent to which the corresponding criteria (determination and uniformity) actually hold for the features being related.
Keywords determination rules  analogical reasoning  generalization  single-instance induction  relevance  uniformity  value of information  learning  overhypothesis  inductive bias
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
How Facts Make Law.Mark Greenberg - 2006 - In Scott Hershovitz (ed.), Exploring Law's Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press. pp. 157-198.
Analogy Making in Legal Reasoning with Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic.Jürgen Hollatz - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):289-301.
Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW]Harm Kloosterhuis - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.
Criteria for Death: Self-Determination and Public Policy.Hans-Martin Sass - 1992 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (4):445-454.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-17

Total downloads
245 ( #19,222 of 2,275,229 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
24 ( #16,460 of 2,275,229 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature