Create a Dreamwidth Account
Site and Account
Reload page in style:
Analogy analysis : comments.
at 08:41pm on 19/03/2014
This is interesting, as your answers were among the more "Mitchelly" of the answers given - I think I would have guessed that you were one of the people less biased by the initial example, more willing to update your rule to take account of new information rather than to stay consistent with the first rule you thought of.
Feynman - if you're doing science, then arguably by definition you get to test your hypotheses, and the smart-aleck hypotheses have
to be worth testing.
at 09:13pm on 19/03/2014
Feynman - if you're doing science, then
*nods* Yes, I had that thought shortly after hitting send. Perhaps if you're approaching the analogy problem with the mind of an experimental physicist, you treat the premise abc → abd as an
, and the question becomes, 'Given that observation, what law of nature is most likely?' And then you take the Occam's Razor approach, and pick the simplest one that fits the observations – until, of course, further experimental results are obtained and the explanations that are
simple begin to be ruled out.
Perhaps Feynman's position, though on the surface it had what Hofstadter called a 'village idiot' nature about it (a curious contrast to your characterisation as 'smart aleck'!), would have revealed huge depths of subtlety had Hofstadter only thought to add one or two
exemplars to his analogy problems: 'If abc → abd
def → deg, what does this or that go to? Do your answers change if it is later revealed that abd → abc? Or dba → cba?'