more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The argument from analogy makes it impossible to check my inductive inferences because of the privacy of other minds; it also seems irresponsible to generalise from a single case; and it seems like a case of human chauvinism.
Clarification
'Human chauvinism' is prejudice in favour of the human view of things
Gist of Idea
Analogy to other minds is uncheckable, over-confident and chauvinistic
Source
Keith T. Maslin (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2001], 8.2)
Book Ref
Maslin,Keith: 'An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind' [Polity 2001], p.215
A Reaction
Privacy of other minds need not imply scepticism about them. I'm a believer, so I have no trouble checking my theories. Solipsists can't 'check' anything. It isn't 'irresponsible' to generalise from one case if that is all you have.
| 3517 | 'Ontology' means 'study of things which exist' [Maslin] |
| 3518 | I'm not the final authority on my understanding of maths [Maslin] |
| 3540 | If we are brains then we never meet each other [Maslin] |
| 3520 | Token-identity removes the explanatory role of the physical [Maslin] |
| 3523 | Shadows are supervenient on their objects, but not reducible [Maslin] |
| 3525 | Strict laws make causation logically necessary [Maslin] |
| 3528 | Causality may require that a law is being followed [Maslin] |
| 3527 | Strict laws allow no exceptions and are part of a closed system [Maslin] |
| 3530 | Denial of purely mental causation will lead to epiphenomenalism [Maslin] |
| 3538 | Analogy to other minds is uncheckable, over-confident and chauvinistic [Maslin] |