Advertisement

Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy

  • Douglas N. Walton
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 25)

Abstract

In this paper I show how there are two different argumentation schemes for argument from analogy, and show by means of examples how each scheme applies to different cases in its own distinctive way. One scheme is based on similarity, while the other scheme is based on factors shared or not shared by two cases that are being compared. The problem confronted in the paper is to study how the two schemes fit together. Are there really two different schemes for argument from analogy, or is the one scheme an extension of the other that applies at a different dialectical stage of the argumentation in a case? Since argument from analogy is fundamental in case-based reasoning and legal reasoning, there is some discussion of how the schemes fit into both topics.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Case-based reasoning Legal rhetoric Scripts Story schemes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for support of this work by Insight Grant 435-2012-0104.

References

  1. Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, K. 1988. Arguing by analogy in law: A case-based model. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. H. Helman, 205–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, K. 2006. Case-based reasoning. In Information technology and lawyers, eds. A. R. Lodder and A. Oskamp, 23–60. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bex, F. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bex, F., and H. Prakken. 2010. Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, eds. P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter, 3–84. Amsterdam: IOS press.Google Scholar
  6. Copi, I. M., and C. Cohen, C. 1990. Introduction to logic. 8th ed. New York: Macmillan. (First published 1953).Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, T. F. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, eds. C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, 145–156. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, T. F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171:875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guarini, M. 2004. A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24:153–168.Google Scholar
  10. Guarini, M., S. P. Smith, and A. Moldovan. 2009. Resources for research on analogy: A multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Logic 29 (2): 84–197.Google Scholar
  11. Hurley, P. J. 2003. A concise introduction to logic. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  12. Kienpointner, M. 2012. When figurative analogies fail: Fallacious uses of arguments from analogy. In Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 111–126. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Lief, M. S., M. Caldwell, and B. Bryce. 1998. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Greatest closing arguments in modern law. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  14. Pennington, N., and R. Hastie, 1992. Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2): 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the juror. The psychology of juror decision making, ed. R. Hastie, 192–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schank, R. C., and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson, J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.Google Scholar
  18. Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3): 217–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walton, D. 2012. Similarity in arguments from analogy. Informal Logic 32 (2): 190–218.Google Scholar
  21. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and RhetoricUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations