Not exact matches
All accept the Qur» an and the sunnah (Muhammad's example) as foundational but differ
on the importance of consensus in collective scholarly
reasoning (ijma) and individual
analogical reasoning (qiyas).
In conjunction, it becomes extremely difficult to change the minds of people who are fixed
on conclusions inferred through
analogical reasoning, even if it is rational for them to soberly reconsider.
By reconciling imagination and
reason, separated since the famous Discourse
on Method of Descartes, Varela and Simon refresh the
analogical thinking so precious to Leonardo da Vinci who says to us: «As the bolt rises which we screw in the nut, also will go up the helix which we screw in the air» The practice of the debate proposes a scenography of alive metaphors in a space of artificial intelligence.
Where is the real line
on abstract /
analogical reasoning and problem solving / negotiation / persuasion skills?