Abstracts
Abstract
This paper uses argumentation tools such as argument diagrams and argumentation schemes to analyze four examples of argument from analogy, and argues that to proceed from there to evaluating these arguments, features of the context of dialogue need to be taken into account. The evidence drawn from these examples is taken to support a pragmatic approach to studying argument from analogy, meaning that identifying the logical form of the argument by building an argument diagram of the premises and conclusion is not by itself sufficient for argument evaluation. To get further, it is argued, the argument evaluator needs to take into account how this particular argument was used in context to support a conversational goal.
Keywords:
- Analogy,
- Analogical Argument,
- Argument Scheme,
- Deliberation,
- Dialogue Type,
- Persuasion
Résumé
Cet article utilise des outils d'argumentation tels que des diagrammes d'argument et des schèmes d'argumentation pour analyser trois exemples d'argument par analogie, et soutient que pour évaluer ces arguments de manière adéquate, il est nécessaire de tenir compte du contexte d'utilisation de l'argument. Ces exemples suggèrent que l’étude des arguments par analogie à partir de seulement l’identification de leur forme logique (par exemple en construisant un diagramme des prémisses et de leur conclusion) n'est pas adéquate. Pour aller plus loin, on avance que l'analyste d'argument doit prendre en compte comment un argument particulier a été utilisé dans un contexte pour soutenir un but conversationnel.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and Walton, D. 2013. Distinctive Features of Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues, Argument and Computation 4(2): 105-127.
- Bartha, P. 2010. By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evalua-tion of Analogical Arguments (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Bermejo-Luque, L. 2012. A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy. Informal Logic 32(1): 1-24.
- Bex, F. J. 2011. Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Broyles, W. 2011, August 22. Oval Office Appeaser. Newsweek, 28-28.
- FindLaw 2002. Statement of decision by the honourable Kevin M. McCarthy in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bonds/popovhayash i121802dec.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2016
- Bowdle. B. F. and Gentner, D. 2005. The Career of Metaphor, Psychological Review 112(1): 193-216.
- Doury, M. 2009. Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The Case of Comparative Arguments, in F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.). Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues (pp. 141-154). The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
- Garssen, B. 2009. “Comparing the Incomparable: Figurative Analogies in a Dialectical Testing Procedure”. In: van Eemeren, F. H. and B. Garssen (eds.). Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues (pp. 130-140). Series: Argumentation Library, Vol. 14.
- Govier, T. and Lowell A. 2012. “Logic, Parables, and Argument”. Informal Logic 32(2):161-189.
- Giglio, M. 2011, May 9. Saudi's Suprise Renegades. Newsweek, 34 -37.
- Govier, T. 2002. Should a Priori Analogies Be Regarded as Deductive Arguments?, Informal Logic 22(2): 155-157.
- Govier, T. 1985. A Practical Study of Argument. 1st ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Guarini, M. 2004. A Defence of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments. Informal Logic 24(2): 153-168.
- Guarini, M. 2016. Two-wise and Three-wise Similarity, and Nondeductive Analogical Arguments. Bondy, P., & Benacquista, L. (Eds.). Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016. Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1-7.
- Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by Analogy, Argumentation 19(1): 1-27.
- Juthe, A. 2015. Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argumentation. Informal Logic 35(3): 378-445.
- Juthe, A. 2016. “Classifications of Arguments by Analogy Part I – a comprehensive review of proposals for classifying arguments by analogy”. Cogency 8(2): 51-99.
- Kienpointner, M. 2012. “When Figurative Analogies Fail: Fallacious Uses of Arguments from Analogy”. In: F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (eds.). Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies 22 (pp. 111-125). Argumentation Library Volume. Dordrecht, Heidelberg: Springer.
- Macagno, F. 2017. The Logical and Pragmatic Structure of Arguments from Analogy, Logique et Analyse, 240: 465-489.
- Macagno, F., Walton, D. and Tindale, C. W. 2016. Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions, Argumentation: DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6
- Santibanez, C. 2010. Metaphors and Argumentation: The Case of Chilean Parliamentarian Media Participation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 973-989.
- Schank, R. C. 1986. Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
- Waller, B. N. 2001. Classifying and Analyzing Analogies, Informal Logic 21(3): 199-218.
- Walton, D. 1992. Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Shifts, and Fallacies, F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard, eds., Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: SICSAT, 133-147.
- Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, Precedent and Argument from Analogy, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(3): 217-246.
- Walton, D. 2013. Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walton, D. 2014. Baseballs and Arguments from Fairness, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 22(4): 423-449.
- Walton, D. and Krabbe E. C. W. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: SUNY Press.
- Walton, D., Reed C. and Macagno F. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. 2017. Cumulative Arguments in Artificial Intelligence and Informal Logic, Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentacion, 14(2): 1-28.
- Walton, D., Toniolo, A. and Norman, T. J. 2016. Speech Acts and Burden Proof in Computational Models of Deliberation Dialogue, Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation, ed. D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski. London, College Publications, 2016(1):757-776. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/16ECAfinal.pdf