The Logical and Pragmatic Structure of Arguments from Analogy

Fabrizio Macagno

Abstract


The reasoning process of analogy is analyzed as a strict interdependence between a process of abstraction of a common feature and the transfer of an attribute of the Analogue to the Primary Subject. The first reasoning step is regarded as an abstraction of a generic characteristic that is relevant for the attribution of the predicate. The abstracted feature can be considered from a logic-semantic perspective as a functional genus, in the sense that it is contextually essential for the attribution of the predicate, i.e. that is pragmatically fundamental (i.e. relevant) for the predication, or rather the achievement of the communicative intention. While the transfer of the predicate from the analogue to the analogical genus and from the genus to the primary subject is guaranteed by the maxims, or rules of inference, governing the genus-species relation, the connection between the genus and the predicate can be complex, characterized by various types of reasoning patterns. The relevance relation can hide an implicit argument from classification, or an evaluation based on values, consequences or rules, or a causal relation, or an argument from practical reasoning.


References


Aristotle 1991. Posterior Analytics. Translated by J. Barnes. In J. Barnes (ed.), The Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Aristotle 1991. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. In J. Barnes (ed.), The Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Aristotle 1991. Metaphisics. Translated by W.D. Ross. In J. Barnes (ed.), The Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Aristotle 1991. Topics. Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. In J. Barnes (ed.), The Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bartha, P. 2010. By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boethius, A. M. S. 1978. De topicis differentiis. Translated by E. Stump. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Braedley, S., & Luxton, M. 2010. “Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and the Challenges of Everyday Life.” In Braedley and Luxton (eds), Neoliberalism and Everyday Life. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press, 3-21.

Buridan, J. 2001. Summulae de dialectica. An annotated translation, with a philosophical introduction by Gyula Klima. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Cajetanus, T. 1934. De Nominum Analogia. Roma: Institutum Angelicum.

Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Malden: Blackwell.

Copi, I. & Cohen, C. 2005. Introduction to Logic, 12th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Hermann, Paris.

Ducrot, O., & Anscombre, J.-C. 1986. “Argumentativité et informativité”. In M. Meyer, (ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique. Bruxelles : Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 79-93.

Eemeren, F. van & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. 1990. “Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity.” Psychological review 97 (1): 3-18.

Guarini, M., Butchart, A., Smith, P. & Moldovan, A. 2009. “Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide.” Informal Logic 29 (2): 84-197

Hesse, M. 1963. Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed & Ward.

Hesse, M. 1965. “Aristotle’s logic of analogy”. The Philosophical Quarterly 15(61): 328-340.

Juthe, A. 2005. “Argument by analogy.” Argumentation 19(1): 1-27.

Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart, Germany: Fromman-Holzboog.

Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. 1993. “Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment.” Linguistics and philosophy 16(5): 437-493.

Lloyd, G. E. R. 1966. Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. 2009. “Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories”. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42, 2: 154-182.

Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Tindale, C. W. 2014. “Analogical Reasoning and Semantic Rules of Inference.” Revue internationale de philosophie 270(4): 419-432.

Rigotti, E. & Greco-Morasso, S. (2010). “Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components”. Argumentation 24: 489–512.

Rigotti, E. & Rocci, A. 2001. “Sens - non-sens – contresens”. Studies in Communication Sciences 2 : 45-80.

Rigotti, E. 1993. “La sequenza testuale: definizione e procedimenti di analisi con esemplificazioni in lingue diverse”. L'analisi linguistica e letteraria 1 (1): 43-148.

Rigotti, E. 2005. “Congruity theory and argumentation”. Studies in Communication Sciences (special issue): 75-96.

Rigotti, E. 2006. “Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage”. Argumentation 20: 519-540.

Searle, J. 1981. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stern, J. 2008. “Metaphor, semantics and context”. In R. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262-279.

Thomson, J. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1): 47–66.

Walton, D. & Macagno, F. 2009. “Reasoning from Classification and Definition”. Argumentation 23: 81-107

Walton, D. 2003a. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tucaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Walton, D. 2003b. “Defining conditional relevance using linked arguments and argumentation schemes: a commentary on professor Callen's article, rationality and relevancy: conditional relevancy and constrained resources”. Michigan State Law Review 4: 1305-1314.

Walton, D. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(3), 217-246.

Walton, D. 2014. “Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy.” In Ribeiro (ed.), Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy (pp. 23-40). Amsterdam: Springer International Publishing.

Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.