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