Distance and Dissimilarity

Blumson, Ben

doi:10.1080/05568641.2018.1463103

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…they admit a countable order-dense subset (e.g. the rationals).30 Here we are in agreement withBlumson (2018), who presents a forceful dilemma for those who would represent dissimilarity among particulars by distance in a metric space (d above). If comparative dissimilarity is a relation between actual particulars, then the metric d is severely underdetermined (see the previous objection).…”

supporting

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non-metric Propositional Similarity

Paseau

2020

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea that sentences can be closer or further apart in meaning is highly intuitive. Not only that, it is also a pillar of logic, semantic theory and the philosophy of science, and follows from other commitments about similarity. The present paper proposes a novel way of comparing the ‘distance’ between two pairs of propositions. We define ‘$$p_1$$ p 1 is closer in meaning to $$p_2$$ p 2 than $$p_3$$ p 3 is to $$p_4$$ p 4 ’ and thereby give a precise account of comparative propositional similarity facts. Notably, our definition eschews metric assumptions, which are unrealistic in most applications of interest.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 76%

“…Zwart (2001, p. 27). 20 Other papers outside the verisimilitude literature directly emerging from Popper (1963) and that relate to the present paper in different ways include Bigelow (1976), Blumson (2018) and Williamson (1988). 21 See Niiniluoto (1987, pp.…”

Section: Generic Problems With Likeness Accountsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Non-metric Propositional Similarity

Paseau

2020

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See Blumson (, p. 34) for an analysis of dissimilarity that requires a maximum and Blumson (, p. 34; , p. 19) for an analysis that does not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of Similarity

Enflo

2020

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the relationship between the concept of single aspect similarity and proposed measures of similarity. More precisely, it compares eleven measures of similarity in terms of how well they satisfy a list of desiderata, chosen to capture common intuitions concerning the properties of similarity and the relations between similarity and dissimilarity. Three types of measures are discussed: similarity as commonality, similarity as a function of dissimilarity, and similarity as a joint function of commonality and difference. Relative to the desiderata, it is found that a measure of the second type fares the best. However, rather than recommend this measure alone as a measure of similarity, it is suggested that there are at least three separate concepts of single aspect similarity, corresponding to the three types of measures. In light of this proposal, three of the eleven measures (and variants of these) are deemed acceptable.

show abstract

“…Simple class nominalism entails that every two particulars have the same number of properties in common and not in common even in the finite case (Goodman, , 443–444). Moreover, the presupposition that degree of dissimilarity is distance in a metric space has its own problems with infinity (Lewis, , 51; Williamson, , 458–459; Blumson, ). I want to know whether the analyses work at least in the finite case, before considering problems with infinity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalness and Convex Class Nominalism

Blumson

2019

Dialectica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I argue that the analysis of natural properties as convex subsets of a metric space in which the distances are degrees of dissimilarity is incompatible with both the definition of degree of dissimilarity as number of natural properties not in common and the definition of degree of dissimilarity as proportion of natural properties not in common, since in combination with either of these definitions it entails that every property is a natural property, which is absurd. I suggest it follows that we should think of the convex class analysis of natural properties as a variety of resemblance nominalism.

show abstract

Distance and Dissimilarity

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Non-metric Propositional Similarity

Non-metric Propositional Similarity

Measures of Similarity

Naturalness and Convex Class Nominalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About