Argumentation

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 1–27

Argument by Analogy

Article

Abstract

In this essay I characterize arguments by analogy, which have an important role both in philosophical and everyday reasoning. Arguments by analogy are different from ordinary inductive or deductive arguments and have their own distinct features. I try to characterize the structure and function of these arguments. It is further discussed that some arguments, which are not explicit arguments by analogy, nevertheless should be interpreted as such and not as inductive or deductive arguments. The result is that a presumed outcome of a philosophical dispute will have to be reconsidered.

Keywords

analogue analogy argument by analogy assigned-predicate conclusive analogy counterpart different-domain-analogy inconclusive analogy one-to-one correspondence same-domain-analogy target-subject 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, C. 1997‘The Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Uncaused Beginning of the Universe’DialogueXXXVI555562Google Scholar
  2. Barker, E. M. 1989a‘Beardsley’s Theory of Analogy’Informal LogicXI185194Google Scholar
  3. Barker, S. F. 1989b‘Analogy in Hume’s DIALOGUES’Informal LogicXI173184Google Scholar
  4. Beardsley, M. 1975Thinking Straight4thPrentice HallEnglewoodGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, J. A., Johnson, R., H.,  1987‘Argumentation as Dialectical’Argumentation141456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, W. R. 1989‘Two Traditions of Analogy’Informal LogicXI160172Google Scholar
  7. Brown, W. R. 1995‘The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument’Informal Logic1789100Google Scholar
  8. Burbidge, J. 1990Within Reason – A Guide to Non-deductive ReasoningBroadview PressPeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  9. Copi, I. M. 1990Introduction to Logic8thMacmillian Publishing CompanyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Copi, I., Burgess-Jackson, K. 1992Informal Logic8thMacmillian Publishing CompanyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, T. R. 1988

    ‘Determination, Uniformity, and Relevance: Normative Criteria for Generalization and Reasoning by Analogy’

    Helman, D.H. eds. Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, and PhilosophyKluwerDordrecht227259
    Google Scholar
  12. Geisler, N. 1991Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, Grand RapidsBaker Book HouseMIGoogle Scholar
  13. Govier, T. 1985‘Logical Analogies’Informal LogicVII2633Google Scholar
  14. Govier, T. 1989‘Analogies and Missing Premises’Informal Logic11141152Google Scholar
  15. Hobbes, T.: 1946, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, In: M. Oakeshott (ed.), Oxford, Basil Blackwell [1651].Google Scholar
  16. Holyoak, K. J., Thagard, P. 1995Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative ThoughtThe MIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Juthe A.: 2005, ‘Refutation by Parallel Arguments’, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Norman, M. 1958‘Knowledge of Other Minds’The Journal of Philosophy55969978Google Scholar
  19. Prager D.: 2003, ‘George Will and Capital Punishment’, Townhall nov 4, 2003, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031104.sthml. (Viewed” 041006, 19.00).Google Scholar
  20. Smith, Q. 1994‘Can Everything Come to Be Without a Cause?’DialogueXXXIII313323Google Scholar
  21. Steinhart, E. C. 2001The Logic of Metaphor – Analogous Parts of Possible WorldsKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Sullivan, T. D. 1994‘On the Alleged Causeless Beginning of the Universe: A Reply to Quentin Smith’DialogueXXXIII325335Google Scholar
  23. Thomasson, D.: 2003, ‘Debating the Death Penalty’, Townhall nov 15, 2003, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/20031115.sthml. (Viewed” 041006, 19.00)Google Scholar
  24. Walton, D.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  25. Weitzenfeld, J. S. 1984‘Valid Reasoning by Analogy’Philosophy of Science51137149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woods, J., Hudak, B. 1992‘Verdi is the Puccini of Music’Synthese92189220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilsophyUniversity of UppsalaAlundaSweden

Personalised recommendations