Philosophy - Philosophy Course Notes
Arguments by Analogy
Lecture 16
June 22, 2007
I. What Makes Up An Analogy
A. There Are Two Different Subjects Being Discussed
1. The Subject Matter They Are Really Concerned About
a. The Subject Matter They Want The Reader to Infer Something About
b. This is the subject author is primarily concerned with.
2. The Analogue
a. Most of the text / speech is primarily taken up with talking about the analogue instead of the primary subject.
b. Usually the arguer cares more about the primary subject instead of the analogue.
II. How Does An Argument By Analogy Work?
A. Discuss the features of the Analogue
It has properties, 1 to n
B. Point out the primary subject also has those features
C. The Analogue also has feature X.
'X' is what is really important.
D. Directly or indirectly infer primary subject has 'feature x' too
The features they have in common infer they have the feature in question.
ie. they are saying the listed features are not only relevant but sufficient.
III. What Analogies Should Have
Only present an argument by analogy if you think the analogue is fairly well understood.
A. Types of Arguments By Analogy
1. Consistency Analogies
- help us determine 'what we should do'
a. Show case A that we consistently treat in the same way.
b. We regard the analogue case as X, therefore we ought to treat the primary case as X as well.
c. In this case not arguing that something is the case but that in order to be consistent we should do something.
d. Where are they used?
i. legal contracts and judgments
ii. issues of morality
iii. politics
iv. other cases where things 'should be treated the same'
2. Inductive Analogies
- Help us determine 'what is the case'
IV. Where Can Arguments By Analogy Go Wrong?
ie. analyzing and judging analogies
There are four main sorts of flaws we need to be on the lookout for.
A. Could Have A False Premise
The analogue or primary subject does not have one or more of the properties that is claimed.
B. Be on the Lookout For Equivocations
The term or property is used in different ways between analogue and primary subject.
C. Unstated Premises
What are relevant disimilarities?
Could 'wreck the case', important facts left unsaid.
D. "Fallacy" of Faulty Analogy - Not Really A Fallacy
What can cause this?
1. The analogue and primary subject are so dissimilar to one another.
2. The properties or shared characteristics are very loosely connected with the inferred characteristics.
3. So erroneous, so bad that we cannot be more specific in diagnosis of what went wrong.
V. Two Tests To Judging An Analogy
A. Are the Shared Features Relevant?
If they are not, then analogy fails.
B. Are They Sufficient To Establish The Connection?
1. No two subject matters are exactly alike or they would be the same thing.
2. There are differences between primary subject and the analogue. Especially if major dissimilarities.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
