The phrase "analogous justifications" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing reasons or explanations that are similar or comparable in nature or context.
Example: "The court found that the analogous justifications presented in both cases led to a consistent ruling."
Alternatives: "similar reasons" or "comparable justifications".
They also analyze this as a strategy in coping with competence deficits and cite justifications analogous to our own findings: skepticism toward the benefit of therapeutic efforts and an unawareness of specialized services offered by other health care professionals.
This would be analogous to the justification used for the Minamata Convention.
One crucial consideration is whether analogous 'justifications' can be given for invalid rules, for example Prior's introduction and elimination rules for 'tonk,' that also have this feature of using a rule to justify itself.[5] (A closely related issue can be traced back to Lewis Carroll and his classic (1895) paper).
(Ebbs also makes the analogous point about the justification for (I), followed by similar objections and replies.
So far in this article only single-agent justification logics, analogous to single-agent logics of knowledge, have been considered.
But we spent the bulk of the second half of Tuesday's lecture thinking about backward-looking justification, which in many ways is analogous to the sort of justification of moral constraint that we see in the deontological picture.
What we might seek is something analogous to a BAF, namely, a justification aggregation function (JAF).
In the collective belief case group justification depends on two analogous factors: (a) the justifiedness of the members' beliefs, and (b) the conditional reliability of the JAF: the function that maps member justifiedness into group justifiedness.
A certain level of agreement is required for decision-makers to see a case as analogous, since that rests on what they judge to be the proper justification for the earlier decision.
If so, presumably torturing the guilty could reasonably be legalised on the grounds that torturing in self-defence is analogous to killing in self-defence, and self-defence is an explicit legal justification for killing in most jurisdictions.
The dynamics are treated by way of spectral analysis, while the justification of the connectivities is sought through the exact solution of an analogous two-dimensional static problem.
