Search results for 'Analogical Argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. William R. Brown (1995). The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument. Informal Logic 17 (1).score: 204.0
    Domain constraint, the requirement that analogues be selected from "the same category," inheres in the popular saying "you can't compare apples and oranges" and the textbook principle "the greater the number of shared properties, the stronger the argument from analogy." I identify roles of domains in biological, linguistic, and legal analogy, supporting the account of law with a computer word search of judicial decisions. I argue that the category treatments within these disciplines cannot be exported to general informal logic, (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Roy W. Perrett (1997). The Analogical Argument for Animal Pain. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (1):49-58.score: 180.0
    Philosophical defenders of animal liberation believe that we have direct duties to animals. Typically a presumption of that belief is that animals have the capacity to experience pain and suffering. Notoriously, however, a strand of Western scientific and philosophical thought has held animals to be incapable of experiencing pain, and even today one frequently encounters in discussions of animal liberation expressions of scepticism about whether animals really experience pain. -/- The Analogical Argument for Animal Pain responds to this (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. C. Kenneth Waters (1986). Taking Analogical Inference Seriously: Darwin's Argument From Artificial Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:502 - 513.score: 150.0
    Although historians have carefully examined exactly what role the analogy between artificial and natural selection might have played in Charles Darwin's discovery of natural selection, philosophers have not devoted much attention to the way Darwin employed the analogy to justify his theory. I suggest that philosophers tend to belittle the role that analogies play in the justification of scientific theories because they don't understand the special nature of analogical inference. I present a novel account of analogical argument (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Thomas M. Olshewsky (1974). The Analogical Argument for Knowledge of Other Minds Reconsidered. American Philosophical Quarterly 11 (January):63-69.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Catherine S. Frazer (1970). Hume's Criticism and Defense of Analogical Argument. Journal of the History of Philosophy 8 (2):173-179.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. R. O. Anderson (1969). Conclusive Analogical Argument. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 23:44-57.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. J. E. Adler (2007). Asymmetrical Analogical Arguments. Argumentation 21 (1):83-92.score: 146.0
    Analogies must be symmetric. If a is like b, then b is like a. So if a has property R, and if R is within the scope of the analogy, then b (probably) has R. However, analogical arguments generally single out, or depend upon, only one of a or b to serve as the basis for the inference. In this respect, analogical arguments are directed by an asymmetry. I defend the importance of this neglected – even when explicitly (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Woosuk Park (2008). Isn't the Indispensability Argument Necessarily Analogical? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 41:13-18.score: 144.0
    Both the defenders and the challengers of the indispensability argument seem to ignore the obvious fact that it is meant to be an analogical inference. In this note, I shall draw attention to this fact so as to avoid unnecessary confusions in any future discussion of the indispensability argument. For this purpose, I shall criticize Maddy’s version of the indispensability argument. After having noted that Quinean holism does not have to be one of the necessary premises, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013). Analogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of Deductivism. Informal Logic 33 (3):406-437.score: 128.0
    The paper provides a qualified defence of Bruce Waller’s deductivist schema for a priori analogical arguments in ethics and law. One crucial qualification is that the schema represents analogical arguments as complexes composed of one deductive inference (hence “deductivism”) but also of one non-deductive subargument. Another important qualification is that the schema is informed by normative assumptions regarding the conditions that an analogical argument must satisfy in order for it to count as an optimal instance of (...)
    Direct download (17 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Marcello Guarini (2004). A Defense of Non-Deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments (AILACT Essay Competition Winner). Informal Logic 24 (2).score: 128.0
    Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative. non-deductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2012). A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy. Informal Logic 32 (1):1-24.score: 118.0
    Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a general unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments. This schema is able to explain why certain analogical arguments can be said to be deductive, and yet, also defeasible.
    Direct download (17 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Chris Kaposy (2012). Two Stalemates in the Philosophical Debate About Abortion and Why They Cannot Be Resolved Using Analogical Arguments. Bioethics 26 (2):84-92.score: 112.0
    Philosophical debate about the ethics of abortion has reached stalemate on two key issues. First, the claim that foetuses have moral standing that entitles them to protections for their lives has been neither convincingly established nor refuted. Second, the question of a pregnant woman's obligation to allow the gestating foetus the use of her body has not been resolved. Both issues are deadlocked because philosophers addressing them invariably rely on intuitions and analogies, and such arguments have weaknesses that make them (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Zbigniew Tworak (2006). Analogy and Diagonal Argument. Logic and Logical Philosophy 15 (1):39-66.score: 108.0
    In this paper, I try to accomplish two goals. The first is to provide a general characterization of a method of proofs called — in mathematics — the diagonal argument. The second is to establish that analogical thinking plays an important role also in mathematical creativity. Namely, mathematical research make use of analogies regarding general strategies of proof. Some of mathematicians, for example George Polya, argued that deductions is impotent without analogy. What I want to show is that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Henrike Jansen (2007). Refuting a Standpoint by Appealing to Its Outcomes: Reductio Ad Absurdum Vs. Argument From Consequences. Informal Logic 27 (3):249-266.score: 96.0
    Used informally, the Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) consists in reasoning appealing to the logically implied, absurd consequences of a hypothetical proposition, in order to refute it. This kind of reasoning resembles the Argument from Consequences, which appeals to causally induced consequences. These types of argument are sometimes confused, since it is not worked out how these different kinds of consequences should be distinguished. In this article it is argued that the logical consequences in RAA-argumentation can take different appearances (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2014). Deduction Without Dogmas:The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation. Informal Logic 34 (3):311-336.score: 96.0
    a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) proposes a defence of Waller’s deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in between deductivism and non-deductivism. This paper is both an attempt at solving this misunderstanding and an analysis and criticism of Waller and Shecaira’s forms of deductivism.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Stephen Prior & Henrik Rosenmeier (1979). Other Minds and the Argument From. Philosophical Investigations 2:12-33.score: 90.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Daniel Steel & S. Kedzie Hall (2010). A New Approach to Argument by Analogy: Extrapolation and Chain Graphs. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):1058-1069.score: 84.0
    In order to make scientific results relevant to practical decision making, it is often necessary to transfer a result obtained in one set of circumstances—an animal model, a computer simulation, an economic experiment—to another that may differ in relevant respects—for example, to humans, the global climate, or an auction. Such inferences, which we can call extrapolations, are a type of argument by analogy. This essay sketches a new approach to analogical inference that utilizes chain graphs, which resemble directed (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. André Juthe (2005). Argument by Analogy. Argumentation 19 (1):1-27.score: 84.0
    ABSTRACT: In this essay I characterize arguments by analogy, which have an impor- tant role both in philosophical and everyday reasoning. Arguments by analogy are dif- ferent from ordinary inductive or deductive arguments and have their own distinct features. I try to characterize the structure and function of these arguments. It is further discussed that some arguments, which are not explicit arguments by analogy, nevertheless should be interpreted as such and not as inductive or deductive arguments. The result is that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Christopher Freiman (2014). Analogical Arguments for Egalitarianism. Ratio 27 (2):222-237.score: 82.0
    Egalitarians sometimes analogize socioeconomic opportunities to starting gates, playing fields, and the results of a lottery. A fair game is one in which all have an equal opportunity to succeed; egalitarians propose that the same is true of a fair society. A second type of argument for egalitarianism appeals to intuitions about the distribution of found resources. A just division of manna discovered on a strange planet seems to be an equal one. Both types of argument share a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Michael J. Wreen (2007). A Second Form of Argument From Analogy. Theoria 73 (3):221-239.score: 80.0
    One form of argument from analogy is identified and Stephen Barker's remarks about a second kind of argument from analogy, non-inductive (and non-deductive) argument from analogy, are used as a springboard to identify a second form. That form is then refined, explained, exemplified, and related to the first form. It is argued that there is a spectrum of different forms of argument from analogy, with the two forms identified being end points on the spectrum. Except in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Kenneth Olson & Gilbert Plumer (2002). What Constitutes a Formal Analogy? In Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.score: 78.0
    There is ample justification for having analogical material in standardized tests for graduate school admission, perhaps especially for law school. We think that formal-analogy questions should compare different scenarios whose structure is the same in terms of the number of objects and the formal properties of their relations. The paper deals with this narrower question of how legitimately to have formal analogy test items, and the broader question of what constitutes a formal analogy in general.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Paul F. A. Bartha (2010). By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments. Oxford University Press.score: 76.0
    Analogical arguments -- Philosophical theories -- Computational theories -- The articulation model -- Analogies in mathematics -- Similarity and patterns of generalization -- Analogy and epistemic values -- Analogy and symmetry -- A wider role for analogies.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. John Woods (2000). Slippery Slopes and Collapsing Taboos. Argumentation 14 (2):107-134.score: 76.0
    A slippery slope argument is an argument to this twofold effect. First, that if a policy or practice P is permitted, then we lack the dialectical resources to demonstrate that a similar policy or practice P* is not permissible. Since P* is indeed not permissible, we should not endorse policy or practice P. At the heart of such arguments is the idea of dialectical impotence, the inability to stop the acceptance of apparently small deviations from a heretofore secure (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Paul Bartha (2013). Analogical Arguments in Mathematics. In. In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Springer. 199--237.score: 76.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Stuart N. Hampshire (1952). The Analogy of Feeling. Mind 61 (January):1-12.score: 72.0
    In this article the author is concerned with the justification of the knowledge of other minds by virtue of statements of other people's feelings based upon inductive arguments of any ordinary pattern as being inferences from the observed to the unobserved of a familiar and accepted form. The author argues that they are not logically peculiar or invalid, When considered as inductive arguments. The author also proposes that solipsism is a linguistically absurd thesis, While at the same time stopping to (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ulf Zackariasson (2006). A Problem with Alston's Indirect Analogy-Argument From Religious Experience. Religious Studies 42 (3):329-341.score: 72.0
    In this paper, William Alston's argument from religious experience in Perceiving God is characterized and assessed as an indirect analogy-argument. Such arguments, I propose, should establish two similarities between sense perception (SP) and religious experience (CMP): a structural and a functional. I argue that Alston neglects functional similarity, and that SP and CMP actually perform different functions within the practices they belong to. Alston's argument is therefore significantly weaker than generally assumed. Finally, I argue that regardless of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Harm Kloosterhuis (2005). Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 19 (4):471-483.score: 72.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Stephen Prior & Henrik Rosenmeier (1979). Other Minds and the Arment From Analogy. Philosophical Investigations 2 (4):12-33.score: 70.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Douglas Walton (2010). Similarity, Precedent and Argument From Analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3):217-246.score: 68.0
    In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Marcello Guarini (2010). Understanding Blended Multi-Source Arguments as Arguments From Partial Analogies. Ratio Juris 23 (1):65-100.score: 66.0
    This paper identifies a type of multi-source (case-based) reasoning and differentiates it from other types of analogical reasoning. Work in cognitive science on mental space mapping or conceptual blending is used to better understand this type of reasoning. The type of argument featured herein will be shown to be a kind of source-blended argument. While it possesses some similarities to traditionally conceived analogical arguments, there are important differences as well. The triple contract (a key development in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Hubert Marraud (2007). La Analogía Como Transferencia Argumentativa (Analogy as an Argumentative Transfer). Theoria 22 (2):167-188.score: 66.0
    La tesis central de este artículo es que la argumentación por analogía consiste en la transferencia de un argumento de un dominio a otro con la pretensión de que el argumento término será bueno si lo es el argumento fuente. El examen de algunos argumentos filosóficos tradicionalmente considerados analógicos lleva a distinguir dos tipos de transferencia analógica. Cuando la transferencia se justifica con un principio abductivo como a casos similares, explicaciones similares, el argumento término es más débil que el argumento (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Steven Gamboa (2008). In Defense of Analogical Reasoning. Informal Logic 28 (3):229-241.score: 66.0
    I offer a defense of ana-logical accounts of scientific models by meeting certain logical objections to the legitimacy of analogical reasoning. I examine an argument by Joseph Agassi that purports to show that all putative cases of analogical inference succumb to the following dilemma: either (1) the reasoning remains hopelessly vague and thus establishes no conclusion, or (2) can be analyzed into a logically preferable non-analogical form. In rebuttal, I offer a class of scientific models for (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Don Locke (1973). Just What is Wrong with the Argument From Analogy? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 51 (August):153-56.score: 64.0
    A reply to hyslop and jackson, American philosophical quarterly, April 1972: I argue that the argument form analogy begs the question, Much as does the inductive justification of induction, Of which it is a version.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Richard I. Sikora (1977). The Argument From Analogy is Not an Argument for Other Mnds. American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (April):137-41.score: 64.0
    If the argument from analogy is an argument for other minds it must rely on a single case, The correlation of your mind with your body. If instead it only attempts to show that certain sorts of experiences are associated with other bodies, It can rely on innumerable correlations of your experiences with your behavior. Having determined in this way that ostensive memories are associated with another body and that they are the kind one would expect if one (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Nikolaj Nottelmann (2006). The Analogy Argument for Doxastic Voluntarism. Philosophical Studies 131 (3):559 - 582.score: 60.0
    An influential version of doxastic voluntarism claims that doxastic events such as belief-formations at least sometimes qualify as actions. William Alston has made a simple response to this claim by arguing on empirical grounds that in normal human agents intentions to form specific beliefs are simply powerless. However, despite Alston’s observation, various authors have insisted that belief-formations may qualify as voluntary in perfect analogy to certain types of actions or even to actions in general. I examine three analogy arguments of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jerome I. Gellman (1974). Inductive Evidence for Other Minds. Philosophical Studies 25 (July):323-336.score: 60.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Bruce Aune (1963). On Thought and Feeling. Philosophical Quarterly 13 (January):1-12.score: 60.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. W. W. Mellor (1956). Three Problems About Other Minds. Mind 65 (April):200-217.score: 60.0
  39. Ray H. Dotterer (1940). Our Certainty of Other Minds. Philosophy of Science 7 (October):442-450.score: 60.0
  40. Harm Kloosterhuis (2000). Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.score: 60.0
    In this paper I investigate the similarities betweenthe dialectical procedure in the pragma-dialecticaltheory and dialectical procedures in AI and Law. I dothis by focusing on one specific type of reasoning inlaw: analogy argumentation. I will argue that analogyargumentation is not only a heuristic forfinding new premises, but also a part of thejustification of legal decisions. The relevantcriteria for the evaluation of analogy argumentationare not to be found at the logical level of inference,but at the procedural level of the discussion. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Alvin Plantinga (1966). Induction and Other Minds. Review of Metaphysics 19 (March):441-61.score: 60.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. P. R. Wilson (1964). On the Argument by Analogy. Philosophy of Science 31 (1):34-39.score: 60.0
    Conditions are stated under which the "argument by analogy" is consistent with the principle of inverse probability. It is contended that the argument by analogy, in conjunction with a crucial test, has a legitimate place in scientific logic. As an example the astrophysical problem of solar granulation is discussed in detail and other examples are mentioned more briefly.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Thomas Young (1993). Analogical Reasoning and Easy Rescue Cases. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:327-339.score: 60.0
    The purpose of this article is to determine whether analogical reasoning can supply a basis for believing that we have a moral obligation to rescue strangers. The paper will focus on donating cadaver organs. I construct a moral analogical argument involving an easy rescue case and organ donation. Various alleged relevant differences between the cases are examined and rejected. Finally, what I cal l “the ownership dilemma” is introduced and I conclude that this dilemma is inescapable. Thus, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Mark Wynn (1996). A Priori Judgments and the Argument From Design. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):169 - 185.score: 60.0
    At the outset of this discussion, I undertook to present an argument from design which would follow Swinburne's example in making use of a priori judgments, while avoiding some of the objections which have been posed in response to his treatment of these issues. So we need to ask: how does this approach to the question of design compare with Swinburne's?Swinburne argues that a chaotic world is a priori more likely than an ordered world: this consideration provides one central (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Mary Hesse (1995). Habermas and the Force of Dialectical Argument. History of European Ideas 21 (3):367-378.score: 60.0
    In his theory of rational discourse, Habermas has made essential use of the concept of 'force of the better argument'. He does not explicitly discuss the theories of meaning and of inference that must underpin this concept, but usually construes it in terms of univocal meaning and propositional inference. These assumptions are challenged by means of examples from the use of metaphor and analogical argument in science, and it is suggested that a generalisation of such arguments applies (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Margaret Chatterjee (1963/1964). Our Knowledge Of Other Selves. Asia Publishing.score: 60.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Alex Levine (2009). Partition Epistemology and Arguments From Analogy. Synthese 166 (3):593 - 600.score: 58.0
    Nineteenth and twentieth century philosophies of science have consistently failed to identify any rational basis for the compelling character of scientific analogies. This failure is particularly worrisome in light of the fact that the development and diffusion of certain scientific analogies, e.g. Darwin’s analogy between domestic breeds and naturally occurring species, constitute paradigm cases of good science. It is argued that the interactivist model, through the notion of a partition epistemology, provides a way to understand the persuasive character of compelling (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. James McGray (1984). Classical Utilitarianism and the Analogy Argument. Southern Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):389-401.score: 58.0
    The essential core of the argument from analogy is that just as it is rational from the perspective of individual persons to maximize their net level of satisfaction, So also it is rational from the perspective of everyone to maximize over the entire set of satisfactions. I argue that the objections of rawls, Gauthier, And nozick to this argument can be answered, And that this argument provides a foundation for classical utilitarianism.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Georg Spielthenner (forthcoming). Analogical Reasoning in Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-14.score: 56.0
    In this article I am concerned with analogical reasoning in ethics. There is no doubt that the use of analogy can be a powerful tool in our ethical reasoning. The importance of this mode of reasoning is therefore commonly accepted, but there is considerable debate concerning how its structure should be understood and how it should be assessed, both logically and epistemically. In this paper, I first explain the basic structure of arguments from analogy in ethics. I then discuss (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.) (2013). The Argument of Mathematics. Springer.score: 56.0
    Bartha, P. (2013). Analogical arguments in mathematics. In A. Aberdein & I.J. Dove (Eds), The Argument of Mathematics (pp. 197—236). Dordrecht: Springer. Bourbaki, N. (1968). Elements of mathematics: Theory of sets. Berlin: Springer.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000