Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the terms of the comparison (essential similarities) or non-semantic ones, indicating possible characteristics of the referents (accidental similarities). Such distinct types of similarity characterize different kinds of analogical arguments, all based on a similar general structure, in which a common genus (or rather a generic feature) is abstracted. Depending on the nature of the abstracted common feature, different rules of inference will apply, guaranteeing the attribution of the analogical predicate to the genus and to the primary subject. This analysis of similarity and the relationship thereof with the rules of inference allows a deeper investigation of the defeasibility conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is the Latin term that corresponds to topos in the Greek.

  2. In Latin: “quae generi adsunt speciei adsunt.”

References

  • Abaelardus, P. 1970. In Dialectica, ed. L. M. de Rijk. Assen: Van Gorcum.

  • Aristotle, 1991a. Generation of Animals. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1991b. Metaphysics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1991c. Posterior analytics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1991d. Prior Analytics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1991e. Rhetoric. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1991f. Topics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. 2006. Case-based reasoning. In Information technology and lawyers, ed. A.R. Lodder, and A. Oskamp, 26–60. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., and E. Rissland. 2003. Law, learning and representation. Artificial Intelligence 150(1): 17–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartha, P. 2010. By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, O. 1960. The formalizing of the topics in mediaeval logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1(4): 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, O. 1962. The tradition of the logical topics: Aristotle to Ockham. Journal of the History of Ideas 23(3): 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W.R. 1989. Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic 11(3): 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buridanus, J. 2001. In Summulae de Dialectica: An annotated translation, with a philosophical introduction by Gyula Klima, ed. G. Klima, New Haven & Londo: Yale University Press.

  • Christensen, J. 1988. The formal character of koinoi topoi in Aristotle’s rhetoric and dialectic. Illustrated by the list in Rhetorica II, 23. Cahiers de L’institut Du Moyen Âge Grec et Latin 57: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M.T. 1988. In De Inventione, ed. C. D. Yonge (The Oratio). London: George Bell & Sons.

  • Copi, I., and K. Burgess-Jackson. 1992. Informal logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I., and C. Cohen. 2005. Introduction to logic, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. 2015. Reasoning and public health: New ways of coping with uncertainty. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L. 1982. Artificial intelligence and philosophy of science: Reasoning by analogy in theory construction. PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 147–165. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, T.R. 1988. Determination, uniformity, and relevance: Normative criteria for generalization and reasoning by analogy. In ed. D. Helman. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • de V. Cajetanus, T. 1934. De Nominum analogia. Rome: Institutum Angelicum.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pater, W. 1965. Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. La méthodologie de la définition. Fribourg: Éditions St. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, M. 2007. Aristotle on definition. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drehe, I. 2011. The Aristotelian dialectical topos. Argumentum 9(2): 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesereth, M.R. 1980. Metaphors and models. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 208–211. Stanford: Morgan-Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. 1980. The structure of analogical models in science. Cambridge: Bolt Beranek and Newman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, S., and B. Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1): 3–18. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3.

  • Green-Pedersen, N.J. 1984. The tradition of the topics in the middle ages: The commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ topics. Munich: Philosophia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green-Pedersen, N.J. 1987. The topics in medieval logic. Argumentation 1(4): 407–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M., A. Butchart, P. Simard Smith, and A. Moldovan. 2009. Resources for research on analogy: A multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Logic 29(2): 84–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. 1965. Aristotle’s logic of analogy. The Philosophical Quarterly 328–340.

  • Hesse, M. 1966. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. 1988. Theories, family resemblances and analogy. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. Helman, 317–340. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hispanus, P. 1990. In Peter of Spain: Language in Dispute. An English translation of Peter of Spain’s ‘Tractatus’ called afterwards SUMMULAE LOGICALES, based on the critical edition by LM de Rijk, ed. F. Dinneen, Vol. 39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1): 1–27. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9.

  • Kakuta, T., M. Haraguchi, and Y. Okubo. 1997. A goal-dependent abstraction for legal reasoning by analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5(1–2): 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. 1997. On the art of finding arguments: What ancient and modern masters of invention have to tell us about the “ars inveniendi”. Argumentation 11: 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. 2001. Modern revivals of Aristotle’s and Cicero’s topics: Toulmin, Perelman Anscombre/Ducrot. Journal of Latin Linguistics 7(1): 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S.R. 1982. Aristotle’s theory of metaphor. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24–46.

  • Lloyd, A. 1962. Genus, species and ordered series in Aristotle. Phronesis, 67–90.

  • Lloyd, G.E.R. 1966. Polarity and analogy: Two types of argumentation in early Greek thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F. 2014. Analogy and redefinition. In Systematic approaches to agument by analogy, ed. H. Ribeiro, 73–89. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and G. Damele. 2013. The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic, 33(3): 361–389. http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3679/3138.

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2006. Argumentative reasoning patterns. Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI-European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 48–51. Trento: University of Trento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42(2), 154–182. http://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0034.

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., D. Walton, and C. Tindale. 2014. Analogical reasoning and semantic rules of inference. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 270(4): 419–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malink, M. 2013. Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meheus, J. 2000. Analogical reasoning in creative problem solving processes: Logico-philosophical perspectives. In Metaphor and analogy in the sciences, ed. F. Hallyn, 17–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quintilianus, M.F. 1996. In Institutio oratoria, ed. H.E. Butler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Ribeiro, H. (ed.). 2014. Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, vol. 25. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti, E. 2007. Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation, 20(4): 519–540. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9034-2.

  • Ross, J.F. 1981. Portraying analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinelli, S. 2009. Ars topica: The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero, vol. 15. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. 1988. Analogy by similarity. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. Helman, 251–269. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, C. 2003. Multiple analogies in science and philosophy, vol. 11. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Slomkowski, P. 1997. Aristotele’s topics. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. 1982. Topics: Their development and absorption into consequences. In Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy, ed. N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, and J. Pinborg, 273–299. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. 1989. Dialectic and its place in the development of Medieval logic. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. 2004. Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis”. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, B.N. 2001. Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21(3): 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(3), 217–246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9102-z.

  • Walton, D. 2014. Argumentation schemes for argument from analogy. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. H. Ribeiro, 23–40. Amsterdam: Springer.

  • Walton, D., and F. Macagno. 2009. Classification and ambiguity: The role of definition in a conceptual system. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16(29): 245–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreb, L. 2005. Legal reason: The use of analogy in legal argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ArgLab-Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Avenida de Berna 26, 1069-061, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

  2. CRRAR, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada

    Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Tindale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macagno, F., Walton, D. & Tindale, C. Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions. Argumentation 31, 221–243 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation