![]() A solution to this problem has been proposed by van Rooij et al. This is problematic because, assuming that the brain is limited by finite computational resources, brain computation is constrained to be tractable. However, the most well known model of analogical mapping, called Structure-Mapping Theory, has been shown to be computationally intractable. A better understanding of how the brain supports the analogical mapping process carries the potential to better understand the domains where it manifests. This is believed to be a fundamental aspect of intelligence, found in language, creativity, problem solving, and reasoning. The analogical mapping process underlying this capacity allows us to draw inferences about objects, actions, and events that we see as analogous to one another. We possess the remarkable capacity to identify and understand relational similarities between the constituent parts of disparate wholes. The underlying inferential processed will be explicated in detail and illustrated by various examples. In particular I hold that (at least) two forms of analogical reasoning have to be distinguished, because they represent different inferential paths. In the proposed paper I hold that analogical reasoning can indeed be analyzed in this way and that this helps us to reach a much more precise and differentiated understanding of the forms and processes of analogical reasoning. ![]() Peirce has claimed that analogy is a compound form of reasoning that integrates abduction and induction, but the intriguing question is still, how these two inferences are to be reconstructed precisely. Indeed, inventive reasoning is usually identified with abduction, and consequently abduction should play at least some role in analogy. Peirce’s merit to have pointed to this fact and that induction can merely extrapolate and generalize something already at hand, but not the kind of reasoning that leads to new concepts. However, inductive reasoning - in a narrow and technical sense - is not creative, whereas analogical reasoning counts as an important source of human creativity. And this is all the more problematic, because analogical reasoning is widely conceived of as “inductive” reasoning. ![]() Apart from the differences that exist between these approaches, one important problem appears to be the lack of inferential precision with respect to these processes of matching and mapping. Analogical reasoning has been investigated by philosophers and psychologists who have produced different approaches like “schema induction” (Gick and Holyoak) or the “structure-mapping theory” (Gentner).What is commonplace, however, is that analogical reasoning involves processes of matching and mapping. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |