Scribd
Upload
58 views5 pages

Analogical Reasoning: Induction and Deduction Revisited Arguments

The document discusses analogical reasoning and argumentation. It distinguishes deductive from inductive reasoning, noting that inductive arguments make probable claims based on analogies, hypotheses, and causal laws rather than logical necessity. Analogical arguments are a type of inductive argument where entities are concluded to share an attribute based on their similarity in other respects. Six criteria are provided for evaluating analogical arguments: the number of entities and respects involved, their variety and relevance, potential disanalogies, and the modesty of the conclusion relative to the premises. Refutation by logical analogy is also discussed as a technique for demonstrating weaknesses in non-deductive arguments.

Uploaded by

John Cheeky
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views5 pages

Analogical Reasoning: Induction and Deduction Revisited Arguments

The document discusses analogical reasoning and argumentation. It distinguishes deductive from inductive reasoning, noting that inductive arguments make probable claims based on analogies, hypotheses, and causal laws rather than logical necessity. Analogical arguments are a type of inductive argument where entities are concluded to share an attribute based on their similarity in other respects. Six criteria are provided for evaluating analogical arguments: the number of entities and respects involved, their variety and relevance, potential disanalogies, and the modesty of the conclusion relative to the premises. Refutation by logical analogy is also discussed as a technique for demonstrating weaknesses in non-deductive arguments.

Uploaded by

John Cheeky
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

ANALOGICAL REASONING

Induction and Deduction Revisited

Arguments

- Built on premises
o Believed/assumed to be true
- Premises
o Not all premises can be established via deduction
- Matters of fact
o Established by inductive reasoning

Distinguishing Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

- Relation of the premises to the conclusion


o Deductive
 Conclusions follow with the certainty of its premises
 Relationship of conclusions and premises
 By logical necessity
 If the propositions are valid and the premises are true
o Then the conclusion must be true
o Inductive
 Claim of certainty isn’t made
 Arguments by inductive reasoning
 Conclusions are probable
 Based on analogies
o Applying causal laws
o Use of hypotheses
o Confirmation in developing scientific theories
 Relationship of conclusions and premises
 Not by logical necessity
 Valid/invalid terms don’t apply
Argument by Analogy

Analogy

- Definition
o A parallel drawn between 2 or more entities
 By indicating 1 or more respects they’re similar in

- Common ground of everyday inferences


o May be used non-argumentatively
 For the purpose of a lively description
o Literary uses
 Metaphors, similes, etc.
o May be used in explanations

- Emphasizes similar aspects

Analogical Arguments

- Definition
o Kind of inductive argument
 The fact that 2 entities are alike in some respects
 It’s concluded that they’re also alike in other respects

- A fundamental tool in courts


o Inference in a current case
 May be shown to be similar to another inference drawn from a previous case
 Stare Decisis

- Form
o Given:
 a, b, c, and d - entities
 P, Q, and R - attributes/” respects”
o Form
 a, b, c, and d all have attributes of P and Q
 a, b, c has the attribute of R
 Therefore, d probably has the attribute of R
Appraising Analogical Arguments

Six Criteria to Appraise Analogical Arguments

- Number of entities
o General Rule
 The more entities involved, the stronger the argument

- Variety of instances in the premises


o The more dissimilar the instances mentioned only in the premises of an analogical argument
 The stronger the argument

- Number of similar respects


o Rooted in common sense
o The more respects an entity in the conclusion is similar to the entities in the premises
 The more probable the conclusion is

- Relevance
o Respects add to the force of the argument when they are relevant
 A single highly relevant factor contributes more than a multitude of irrelevant similarities
o Causal relations
 Must be established to strengthen relevancy
 Causal connections can only be discovered empirically
 By observation and experiment
 Empirical investigation
o Central concern of inductive logic
- Disanalogies
o Disanalogy
 A point of difference between the cases cited in the premises and the case mentioned in the
conclusion
 A respect in the conclusion distinguishable from the respects in the premises
o Undermines/weakens an analogical argument
 When the points of difference identified are relevant
 Commonly employed in attacking analogical arguments
o A proper analogical argument
 Must have little disanalogies
o Distinct from variety of instances in the premises
 Variety of instances in the premises
 The more dissimilarities among the premises, the stronger the argument
 Disanalogies
 Tends to show that there are relevant respects in the case in the conclusion that differs
from the premises
- Claim that the conclusion makes
o Every argument must make the claim that its premises give reasons to accept its conclusion
o Modesty of the conclusion relative to the premises
 Critical in determining the merit of the inference
 The more modest the claim
 The less burden is placed on the premises
 The stronger the argument
 The bolder the claim
 Greater burden is placed on the premises
 The weaker the argument
 More difficult to defend
o Conclusions
 If the conclusion is bolder and the premises are unchanged
 Then the weaker the argument
Refutation by Logical Analogy

Refutation by Logical Analogy

- To demonstrate weakness of an argument


o By stating another argument
 Known to be erroneous
 With the same logical form
 e.g.
 I mean what “I say, I say what I mean”
 Refuted by: “I like what I get, and I get what I like”
o May be used against: Non-deductive arguments
 With aspects:
 Scientific
 Political
 Economic arguments
 Countered by the similar arguments
 Whose conclusions are known to be false and improbably

- To assail another inductive argument


o Form must be considered

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy