David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 75 (2):178-200 (2008)
The structure-mapping theory has become the de-facto standard account of analogies in cognitive science and philosophy of science. In this paper I propose a distinction between two kinds of domains and I show how the account of analogies based on structure-preserving mappings fails in certain (object-rich) domains, which are very common in mathematics, and how the axiomatic approach to analogies, which is based on a common linguistic description of the analogs in terms of laws or axioms, can be used successfully to explicate analogies of this kind. Thus, the two accounts of analogies should be regarded as complementary, since each of them is adequate for explicating analogies that are drawn between different kinds of domains. In addition, I illustrate how the account of analogies based on axioms has also considerable practical advantages, e. g., for the discovery of new analogies.
|Keywords||Analogical reasoning Mathematical reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
George Lakoff (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Ernest Nagel (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Carl Hempel (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press.
Mary B. Hesse (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press.
Dedre Gentner (1983). Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science 7 (2):155-170.
Citations of this work BETA
Dirk Schlimm (2011). On the Creative Role of Axiomatics. The Discovery of Lattices by Schröder, Dedekind, Birkhoff, and Others. Synthese 183 (1):47-68.
Alison Pease, Markus Guhe & Alan Smaill (2013). Developments in Research on Mathematical Practice and Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (2):224-230.
Dirk Schlimm (2012). A New Look at Analogical Reasoning. Metascience 21 (1):197-201.
Similar books and articles
Clément Vidal (2010). Computational and Biological Analogies for Understanding Fine-Tuned Parameters in Physics. Foundations of Science 15 (4):375 - 393.
Peter Kroes (1989). Structural Analogies Between Physical Systems. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (2):145-154.
Bjørn Hofmann, Jan Helge Solbakk & Søren Holm (2006). Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks: The Role of Analogies in Bioethical Analysis and Argumentation Concerning New Technologies. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (5):397-413.
Paul F. Camenisch (1976). Abortion, Analogies and the Emergence of Value. Journal of Religious Ethics 4 (1):131 - 158.
Peter Achinstein (1964). Models, Analogies, and Theories. Philosophy of Science 31 (4):328-350.
Mary S. Morgan (1997). The Technology of Analogical Models: Irving Fisher's Monetary Worlds. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):314.
Cameron Shelley (1999). Multiple Analogies in Archaeology. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):579-605.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #97,935 of 1,934,708 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #76,856 of 1,934,708 )
How can I increase my downloads?