Argumentation

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 71–84 | Cite as

Retroductive Analogy: How to and How Not to Make Claims of Good Reasons to Believe in Evolutionary and Anti-Evolutionary Hypotheses

Article

Abstract

This paper describes an argumentative fallacy we call ‘Retroductive Analogy.’ It occurs when the ability of a favored hypothesis to explain some phenomena, together with the fact that hypotheses of a similar sort are well supported, is taken to be sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis. This fallacy derives from the retroductive or abductive form of reasoning described by Charles Sanders Peirce. According to Peirce’s account, retroduction can provide good reasons to pursue a hypothesis but does not, by itself, provide good reasons to believe the hypothesis. In successful applications of retroduction, pursuit leads to the accumulation of evidence. In retroductive analogy, comparison with other successful hypotheses is substituted for the genuine pursuit of evidence. We describe a case from ecological genetics in which retroduction plays a legitimate role as the initial phase of an ongoing research program that serves to accumulate genuine evidence for a hypothesis. We also examine two contexts in which the fallacy of retroductive analogy occurs: in defenses of Intelligent Design Theory and in defense of some hypotheses in Evolutionary Psychology.

Keywords

Evidence Retroduction Evolutionary hypotheses Intelligent design Evolutionary psychology 

References

  1. Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s black box. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cain, A.J., and P.M. Sheppard. 1950. Selection in the polymorphic land snail Cepaea nemoralis. Heredity 4: 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cain, A.J., and P.M. Sheppard. 1953. Natural selection in Cepaea. Genetics 39: 89–116.Google Scholar
  4. Dembski, William. 1997. The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dembski, William. 2002. No free lunch. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Dembski, William. 2005. Expert witness report: The scientific status of intelligent design. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. http://www.designinference.com/. Retrieved 18 June 2008.
  7. Fitelson, Branden, Christopher Stephens, and Elliott Sober. 1999. How not to detect design—critical notice: William A. Dembski, The design inference. Philosophy of Science 66: 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2001. Information and the argument from design. In Intelligent design creationism and its critics, ed. Robert T. Pennock. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
  10. Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lamotte, Maxime. 1951. Rescherches sur la structure genetique des populations naturelles de Cepaea nemoralis L. Supplement to Bulletin Biologique de France et de Belguque 35: 1–239.Google Scholar
  12. Lamotte, Maxime. 1959. Polymorphism of natural populations of Cepaea nemoralis. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 24: 65–86.Google Scholar
  13. Mealey, Linda. 1995. The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (3): 523–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, Kenneth R. 2005. Expert testimony, Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover area school district. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html. Retrieved 18 June 2008.
  15. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1901. Hume on miracles. In Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. VI, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935.Google Scholar
  16. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1901/1903. Abduction and induction. In The philosophy of Peirce: Selected writings, ed. Justus Buchler. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1940.Google Scholar
  17. Peirce, Charles Sanders. c. 1910. A letter to Paul Carus. In Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. VIII, ed. Arthur Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  18. Pennock, Robert T. 2001. Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: The case of Philip Johnson. In Intelligent design creationism and its critics, ed. Robert T. Pennock. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sheppard, P.M. 1951. Fluctuations in the selective value of certain phenotypes in the polymorphic land snail Cepeae nemoralis (L.). Heredity 5: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sober, Elliot. 2000. Philosophy of biology, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Millersville UniversityMillersvilleUSA
  2. 2.Gettysburg CollegeGettysburgUSA

Personalised recommendations