The argument from analogy is not an argument for other mnds

American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (2):137-41 (1977)

Abstract

If the argument from analogy is an argument for other minds it must rely on a single case, The correlation of your mind with your body. If instead it only attempts to show that certain sorts of experiences are associated with other bodies, It can rely on innumerable correlations of your experiences with your behavior. Having determined in this way that ostensive memories are associated with another body and that they are the kind one would expect if one mind had been associated with this body throughout its existence, You can then offer another argument to this effect--And you could do so even if your own memories associated your own experiences with a succession of different bodies

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,879

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
59 (#197,070)

6 months
4 (#162,565)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

Analogies and Other Minds.Bryan Benham - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (2):198-214.
A Multiple Case Inference and Other Minds.Alec Hyslop - 1979 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (4):330-36.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Argument by Analogy.P. R. Wilson - 1964 - Philosophy of Science 31 (1):34-39.
Just What is Wrong with the Argument From Analogy?Don Locke - 1973 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):153-56.
Our Certainty of Other Minds.Ray H. Dotterer - 1940 - Philosophy of Science 7 (October):442-450.
Strawson and the Argument for Other Minds.D. L. C. Maclachlan - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Research 18:149-157.
Abortion, Analogies and the Emergence of Value.Paul F. Camenisch - 1976 - Journal of Religious Ethics 4 (1):131 - 158.