ability to make analogies
This essay focuses on ability to make analogies. Our ability to generate explanations bears striking similarities to our ability to make analogies. Both reflect a capacity to generate inferences and generalizations that go beyond the featural similarities between a novel problem and familiar problems in terms of which the novel problem may be understand.
ability to make analogies
or lifestyle that may not be related to the product? Does the ad use any other informal fallacies? Does the ad use emotive language, images, or euphemisms? Is grammar confusing or the wording misleading? Is the language vague, ambiguous, or obscure? Are the claims exaggerate? Does the ad leave out information that is necessary for us to make a decision? If the ad uses an analogy, is the analogy relevant?
Writing instructions
Example
People are habitual explanation generators. At its most mundane, our propensity to explain allows us to infer that we should not drink milk that smells sour; at the other extreme, it allows us to establish facts (e.g., theorems in mathematical logic) whose truth was not even know prior to the existence of the explanation (proof). What do the cognitive operations underlying the inference that the milk is sour have in common with the proof that, say, the square root of two is irrational? Our ability to generate explanations bears striking similarities to our ability to make analogies. Both reflect a capacity to generate inferences and generalizations that go beyond the featural similarities between a novel problem and familiar problems in terms of which the novel problem may be understood.
However, a notable difference between analogy-making and explanation-generation is that the former is a process in which a single source situation is use to reason about a single target, whereas the latter often requires the reasoner to integrate multiple sources of knowledge. This seemingly small difference poses a challenge to the task of marshaling our understanding of analogical reasoning to understanding explanation. We describe a model of explanation, derived from a model of analogy, adapted to permit systematic violations of this one-to-one mapping constraint. Simulation results demonstrate that the resulting model can generate explanations for novel explananda and that, like the explanations generate by human reasoners, these explanations vary in their coherence.
details;
firstly, i
secondly, dont
thitdly, care
finally, loe
lastly, you
Attachments
