, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 221–243 | Cite as

Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions

  • Fabrizio MacagnoEmail author
  • Douglas Walton
  • Christopher Tindale


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.


Analogy Argumentation schemes Argumentation Rhetoric Defeasibility Inferences Interpretation 


  1. Abaelardus, P. 1970. In Dialectica, ed. L. M. de Rijk. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle, 1991a. Generation of Animals. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle, 1991b. Metaphysics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle, 1991c. Posterior analytics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle, 1991d. Prior Analytics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle, 1991e. Rhetoric. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle, 1991f. Topics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ashley, K. 2006. Case-based reasoning. In Information technology and lawyers, ed. A.R. Lodder, and A. Oskamp, 26–60. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Ashley, K., and E. Rissland. 2003. Law, learning and representation. Artificial Intelligence 150(1): 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartha, P. 2010. By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bird, O. 1960. The formalizing of the topics in mediaeval logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1(4): 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bird, O. 1962. The tradition of the logical topics: Aristotle to Ockham. Journal of the History of Ideas 23(3): 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, W.R. 1989. Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic 11(3): 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Cicero, M.T. 1988. In De Inventione, ed. C. D. Yonge (The Oratio). London: George Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Copi, I., and K. Burgess-Jackson. 1992. Informal logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Copi, I., and C. Cohen. 2005. Introduction to logic, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hal.Google Scholar
  19. Cummings, L. 2015. Reasoning and public health: New ways of coping with uncertainty. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Davies, T.R. 1988. Determination, uniformity, and relevance: Normative criteria for generalization and reasoning by analogy. In ed. D. Helman. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. de V. Cajetanus, T. 1934. De Nominum analogia. Rome: Institutum Angelicum.Google Scholar
  23. de Pater, W. 1965. Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. La méthodologie de la définition. Fribourg: Éditions St. Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Deslauriers, M. 2007. Aristotle on definition. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drehe, I. 2011. The Aristotelian dialectical topos. Argumentum 9(2): 129–139.Google Scholar
  26. Genesereth, M.R. 1980. Metaphors and models. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 208–211. Stanford: Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  27. Gentner, D. 1980. The structure of analogical models in science. Cambridge: Bolt Beranek and Newman.Google Scholar
  28. Glucksberg, S., and B. Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1): 3–18.
  29. 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
  30. Green-Pedersen, N.J. 1987. The topics in medieval logic. Argumentation 1(4): 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hesse, M. 1965. Aristotle’s logic of analogy. The Philosophical Quarterly 328–340.Google Scholar
  33. Hesse, M. 1966. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hesse, M. 1988. Theories, family resemblances and analogy. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. Helman, 317–340. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1): 1–27.
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kienpointner, M. 2001. Modern revivals of Aristotle’s and Cicero’s topics: Toulmin, Perelman Anscombre/Ducrot. Journal of Latin Linguistics 7(1): 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levin, S.R. 1982. Aristotle’s theory of metaphor. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24–46.Google Scholar
  41. Lloyd, A. 1962. Genus, species and ordered series in Aristotle. Phronesis, 67–90.Google Scholar
  42. Lloyd, G.E.R. 1966. Polarity and analogy: Two types of argumentation in early Greek thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Macagno, F. 2014. Analogy and redefinition. In Systematic approaches to agument by analogy, ed. H. Ribeiro, 73–89. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Macagno, F., and G. Damele. 2013. The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic, 33(3): 361–389.
  45. 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
  46. Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42(2), 154–182.
  47. Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Malink, M. 2013. Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quintilianus, M.F. 1996. In Institutio oratoria, ed. H.E. Butler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ribeiro, H. (ed.). 2014. Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, vol. 25. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Rigotti, E. 2007. Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation, 20(4): 519–540.
  54. Ross, J.F. 1981. Portraying analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rubinelli, S. 2009. Ars topica: The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero, vol. 15. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Russell, S. 1988. Analogy by similarity. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. Helman, 251–269. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shelley, C. 2003. Multiple analogies in science and philosophy, vol. 11. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slomkowski, P. 1997. Aristotele’s topics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Stump, E. 1989. Dialectic and its place in the development of Medieval logic. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stump, E. 2004. Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis”. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Waller, B.N. 2001. Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21(3): 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(3), 217–246.
  65. Walton, D. 2014. Argumentation schemes for argument from analogy. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. H. Ribeiro, 23–40. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinreb, L. 2005. Legal reason: The use of analogy in legal argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ArgLab-Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA)Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CRRARUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations