Classifying and Analyzing Analogies

Abstract

Analogies come in several forms that serve distinct functions. Inductive analogy is a common type of analogical argument, but critical thinking texts sometimes treat all analogies as inductive. Such an analysis ignores figurative analogies, which may elucidate but do not argue; and also neglects a priori arguments by analogy, a type of analogical argument prominent in law and ethics. A priori arguments by analogy are distinctive, but--contrary to the claims of Govier and Sunstein-they are best understood as deductive, rather than a special form of non deductive reasoning.

A Defense of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments (AILACT Essay Competition Winner)

“…Some have found it tempting to reconstruct analogical arguments so that the similarity between cases is denied on pain of inconsistency. Bruce Waller has provided just such an account, stressing the importance of deductively reconstructing analogy (Waller 2001). More precisely, he distinguishes between deductive analogies -those found in ethics, law, and even metaphysics -from inductive analogies, found in empirical reasoning.…”

The Cumulative Force of Analogies

“…2 When this happens Waller [2001] says that the analogies are being used 'figuratively' and are not part of the argument but only help us to find arguments.…”

Deduction without Dogmas:The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation

“…In a recent paper published in this journal, Perin Shecaira (2013) proposed a defence of Waller's (2001) deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation against Trudy Govier's (1989 and2002), Marcello Guarini's (2004) and my own (BermejoLuque, 2012) proposals. As I see it, this defence has several flaws, the most important of them being his contention that many good analogical arguments should be deemed bad or deficient on that standard.…”

“…Contrastingly, Waller (2001) contended that a priori analogical arguments should be interpreted and analyzed in terms of the following schema:…”