Abstracts
Abstract
The orthodox view holds that analogical arguments are a distinctive type of argument, while the eliminative view and its enhanced variant proposed in this paper contend that analogical arguments can be reducible to non-analogical arguments by eliminating the similarities proposition. This paper shows that the existing defense for the orthodox view fails to tackle the challenge posed by the eliminative view and its enhanced variant. The new defense for the distinctiveness of analogical arguments argues that an analogical argument is composed of both a conductive and principle-based argument. Consequently, analogical arguments remain irreducible, as the similarities proposition is not eliminated.
Keywords:
- analogy,
- analogical argument,
- conduction,
- conductive argument,
- similarities
Résumé
Le point de vue orthodoxe soutient que les arguments par analogie constituent un type d’argument distinctif, tandis que le point de vue éliminatif et sa variante améliorée proposés dans cet article soutiennent que les arguments par analogie peuvent être réduits à des arguments non analogiques en éliminant la proposition de similitudes. Cet article montre que la défense actuelle du point de vue orthodoxe ne parvient pas à relever le défi posé par le point de vue éliminatif et sa variante améliorée. La nouvelle défense du caractère distinctif des arguments par analogie soutient qu'un tel argument est composé à la fois d'un argument conducteur et d'un argument fondé sur des principes. Puisque la proposition de similitude ne peut pas être éliminée, les arguments par analogie restent irréductibles.
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Agassi, Joseph. 1988. Analogies hard and soft. In Analogical reasoning, ed. David. H. Helman, 401-419. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishing.
- Bartha, Paul F. A. 2010. By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. 2006. Toulmin’s model of argument and the question of relativism. In Arguing on the Toulmin model, eds. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij, 71-85. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. 2012. A unitary schema for arguments by analogy. Informal Logic 32(1): 1-24.
- Blair, J. Anthony. 2011. Conductive reasoning/argument: A map of the issues. In Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning, eds. J. Anthony Blair and Ralph. H. Johnson, 1-9. Lon-don: College Publications.
- Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph. H. Johnson, eds. 2011. Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.
- Botting, David. 2012. The paradox of analogy. Informal Logic 32(1): 98-115.
- Freeman, James B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument. A theory of argument structure. Berlin-New York: Foris/de Gruyter.
- Gamboa, Steven. 2008. In defense of analogical reasoning. Informal Logic 28(3): 229-241.
- Godden, David M. 2005. Deductivism as an interpretive strategy: A reply to Groarke’s recent defense of reconstructive deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy 41: 168-183.
- Govier, Trudy. 1989. Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11(3): 141-152.
- Govier, Trudy. 2002. Should a priori analogies be regarded as deductive arguments? Informal Logic 22(2): 155-157.
- Govier, Trudy. ed. 2018. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation (updated edition). Windsor: University of Windsor.
- Groarke, Leo and Christopher W. Tindale. 2004. Good reasoning matters! A constructive approach to critical thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Groarke, Leo. 1999. Deductivism within pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 13: 1-16.
- Guarini, Marcello. 2004. A defence of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24(2): 153-168.
- Hansen, Hans V. 2011. Notes on balance-of-consideration arguments. In Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning, eds. J. Anthony Blair and Ralph. H. Johnson, 31-51. London: College Publications.
- Hesse, Mary B. 1966. Models and analogies in science. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Hitchcock, David. 2003. Toulmin’s warrants. In Anyone who has a view, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Jin, Rongdong. 2011. An attempt at unifying natural language argument structures. In Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of de-feasible reasoning, eds. J. Anthony Blair and Ralph. H. Johnson, 10-30. London: College Publications.
- Kaptein, Hendrik. 2005. Legal progress through pragma-dialectics? Prospect beyond analogy and e contrario. Argumentation 19: 497-507.
- Liao, Yanlin. 2020. The legitimacy of conductive arguments: What are the logical roles of negative considerations? In From Argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild argumentation, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 255-267. Cham: Springer.
- Ribeiro, Henrique Jales. 2014. Introduction. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed, Jales Henrique Ribeiro, 1-22. London: Springer.
- Shecaira, Fábio Perin. 2013. Analogical arguments in ethics and law: A defence of a Deductivist analysis. Informal Logic 33(3): 406-437.
- Stevens, Katharina. 2016. Reasoning by precedent [Doctoral Dissertation, McMaster University]: <https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/20021/2/Stevens_Katharina_finalsubmission201607_PhD.pdf.pdf>
- Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1): 47-66.
- Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The uses of argument (updated edition). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Waller, Bruce N. 2001. Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21(3): 199-218.
- Walton, Douglas, Chirs Reed and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Walton, Douglas. 2005. Justification of argumentation schemes. Australian Journal of Logic, 3: 1-13.
- Wellman, Carl. 1971. Challenge and response: Justification in ethics. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
- Xie, Yun. 2017. Conductive argument as a mode of strategic maneuvering. Informal Logic 37(1): 2-22.
- Zenker, Frank. 2011. The structure of pro and con arguments: A survey of the theories. In Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of de-feasible reasoning, eds. J. Anthony Blair and Ralph. H. Johnson, 74-85. London: College Publications.