, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 253–280 | Cite as

Analogical Predictions for Explicit Similarity

  • Jan Willem Romeijn


This paper concerns exchangeable analogical predictions based on similarity relations between predicates, and deals with a restricted class of such relations. It describes a system of Carnapian λγ rules on underlying predicate families to model the analogical predictions for this restricted class. Instead of the usual axiomatic definition, the system is characterized with a Bayesian model that employs certain statistical hypotheses. Finally the paper argues that the Bayesian model can be generalized to cover cases outside the restricted class of similarity relations.


Bayesian Model Similarity Relation Statistical Hypothesis Restricted Class Axiomatic Definition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bovens, L., Hartmann, S. 2004Bayesian EpistemologyOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. 1952The Continuum of Inductive MethodsUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. 1980A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part IIJeffrey, R. C. eds. Studies in Inductive Logic and ProbabilityUniversity of California PressBerkeley7150Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R., Stegmüller, W. 1959Induktive Logik und WarscheinlichkeitSpringerWien242252Google Scholar
  5. Finetti, B. 1964Foresight: Its Logical Laws, its Subjective SourcesKyburg, H.E.Smokler, H.E. eds. Studies in Subjective ProbabilityJohn Wiley and SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Maio, M. C. 1995‘Predictive Probability and Analogy by Similarity in Inductive Logic’Erkenntnis43369394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Festa, R. 1993Optimum Inductive MethodsKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Festa, R. 1997‘Analogy and Exchangeability in Predictive Inferences’Erkenntnis4589112Google Scholar
  9. Kuipers, T. A. F. 1984‘Two Types of Inductive Analogy by Similarity’Erkenntnis216387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuipers, T. A. F. 1988Inductive Analogy by Similarity and ProximityHeiman, D. eds. Analogical ReasoningKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht271299Google Scholar
  11. Maher, P. 2000‘Probabilities for Two Properties’Erkenntnis526391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maher, P. 2001‘Probabilities for Multiple Properties: The Models of Hesse and carnap and Kemeny’Erkenntnis55183216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Niiniluoto, I. 1981‘Analogy and Inductive Logic’Erkenntnis21134Google Scholar
  14. Niiniluoto, I. 1988Analogy by Similarity in Scientific ReasoningHelman, D. eds. Analogical ReasoningKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht27199Google Scholar
  15. Norton, J. D. 2003‘A Material Theory of Induction’Philosophy of Science70647670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Skyrms, B. 1993Analogy by Similarity in Hyper-Carnapian Inductive LogicEarman, J.Janis, A. I.Massey, G.Rescher, N. eds. Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External WorldsUniversity of Pittsburgh PressPittsburgh273282Google Scholar
  17. Spohn, W. 1981‘Analogy and Inductive Logic: A Note on Niiniluoto’Erkenntnis213552Google Scholar
  18. Stegmüller, W.: 1973, Carnap II: Normatieve Theorie des Inductiven Räsonierens, teil C (Band IV), Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAmsterdam UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations