When Figurative Analogies Fail: Fallacious Uses of Arguments from Analogy

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 22)

Abstract

In this contribution, arguments from figurative analogy are reconstructed with the help of a slightly revised version of the descriptive and normative argument schemes and the list of critical questions established by Walton et al. (Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008). However, insights taken from the New Rhetoric of Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca (Traité de l’argumentation. Editions de l’université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 1983), from recent Pragma-Dialectical contributions by Garssen (Comparing the incomparable: figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In FH van Eemeren, B Garssen (eds), Pondering on problems of argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 133–140, 2009) and from Woods’ (The death of argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004) formal analysis of figurative analogies have also been taken into account. Then the problem of evaluating arguments from figurative analogy is dealt with. A list of four critical questions is formulated. The most important critical question is the following one (= CQ3 = critical question three): “Are the important (that is, the most relevant) differences (dissimilarities) between C1 and C2 too overwhelming to allow a conclusion which crosses the different domains of reality to which C1 and C2 belong?” In addition, five pragmatic parameters for the evaluation of arguments from figurative analogy are formulated, which are useful for clarifying the argumentative value of these arguments (e.g. their use as the only, independent argument or as additional, supportive argument; their status as pro or contra arguments; their seriousness etc.). Furthermore, eight empirical case studies (dealing with text passages from a corpus of about 100 authentic examples, mostly taken from political discourse in Austrian newspapers and parliamentary debates, occasionally also from reports, interviews and advertising texts in Austrian media) are analysed. They show that many instances of the argument from figurative analogy are fallacious or at least highly problematic types of argument. Nevertheless, there are also (more or less) plausible uses of this type of argument. Therefore, a general negative evaluation of arguments from figurative analogy as fallacies is out of place. Often, they can be classified as weak, defeasible arguments, which can, however, legitimately shift the burden of proof. A generally negative attitude towards arguments from figurative analogy cannot explain the substantial differences as to their degree of plausibility which manifests itself if authentic examples from everyday argumentation are taken into consideration. The eight case studies also show that arguments from figurative analogy can be seen as specific cases of “strategic maneuvering” (cf. van Eemeren FH, Argumentation 22(3):305–315, 2008; Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2010; van Eemeren FH and Houtlosser P, Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In van Eemeren FH (ed) Advances in pragma-dialectics. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 13–28, 2002; van Eemeren FH and Grootendorst R, A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), which can be a legitimate means of argumentation in some cases, but can also “derail” in other situations.

Keywords

Figurative Analogy Critical Question Argument Scheme Major Premise Strategic Maneuvering 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aristotle. (1965). In R. Kassel (Ed.), Poetics: 1457b. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1991). On Rhetric: 1410b (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Coenen, H. G. (2002). Analogie und Metapher. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Doury, M. (2009). Argument schemes typology in practice: The case of comparative arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 141–155). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2008). Special issue: Strategic maneuvering in institutional contexts. Dedicated to Peter Houtlosser (1956–2008). Argumentation. 22(3).Google Scholar
  6. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garssen, B. (2009). Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 133–140). Amsterdam: SicSat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garssen, B., & Kienpointner, M. (2011). Figurative analogy in political argumentation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. (1896). In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (orig. 1739)Google Scholar
  15. Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  17. Kienpointner, M. (2011). Fiktive Argumente. In C. F. Gethmann (Ed.), Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft (pp. 505–538). Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  18. Kjeldsen, J. E. (2011). Visual tropes and figures as visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 949–960). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/SicSat.Google Scholar
  19. Langsdorf, L. (2007). Changing our minds: On the value of analogies for extending similitude. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 853–857). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  20. Lumer, C. (1990). Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  21. Lumer, C. (2000). Reductionism in fallacy theory. Argumentation, 14(4), 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzi, D. (2011). “Palmerston bustles around with the foreign policy of this powerful nation, like a furious and old drunkard…”. On the discursive formulation of argument by analogy in history. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1221–1233). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/SicSat.Google Scholar
  23. Mengel, P. (1995). Analogien als Argumente. Frankfurt/M: Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Mill, J. St. (2005). A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive. Boston: Elibron Classics/Adamant Media Corporation. (orig. 1843)Google Scholar
  25. Perelman, Ch, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1983). Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  26. Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten. Utrecht: ICG Printing.Google Scholar
  27. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2003). Indicators of analogy argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 969–973). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  28. Stopfner, M. (2010). Streitkultur im Parlament. Linguistische Analyse der Zwischenrufe im österreichischen Nationalrat. Unpublished Dissertation, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  29. Tannen, D. (1995). Job-Talk. Wie Frauen und Männer am Arbeitsplatz miteinander reden. Hamburg: Kabel.Google Scholar
  30. Walton, D. N., (1992). The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Woods, J. (2004). The death of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Languages and Literatures, Section LinguisticsUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations