Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. [1] When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning since the two products share a maker and are therefore both perceived as "bad". It is also the basis of much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats are based on the fact that some physiological similarities between rats and humans implies some further similarity (e.g. possible reactions to a drug). [2]
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis concluding that they also share some further property. [1] [2] [3] The structure or form may be generalised like so: [1] [2] [3]
The argument does not assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The argument may provide us with good evidence for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of logical necessity. [1] [2] [3] Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the form: the content must also come under scrutiny.
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy, including
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by using disanalogy, using counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy. [1] To understand how one might analyse an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and its criticisms put forward by the philosopher David Hume.
The logic behind the watchmaker argument states that you cannot assume that a complex and precise object like a watch was created through some random process. We can easily infer that such objects had an intelligent creator who planned its use. Therefore, we ought to draw the same conclusion for another complex and apparently designed object: the universe. [1]
Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant differences. For instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random but a watch is not. This form of argument is called "disanalogy". If the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, then the amount and variety of relevant differences have to weaken it. [1] Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity — snowflakes for example — but are not the result of intelligent direction. [1] But even if the snowflake's order and complexity might not have direction, their causes might. So this falsifies the statement but begs the question. Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument. For instance, objects such as watches are often the result of the labour of groups of individuals. Thus, the reasoning used by the teleological argument would seem to agree with polytheism. [1]
A false analogy is an informal fallacy, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy.
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. [2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not at all relevant to the property of laziness (although this in particular is an example of a faulty generalisation rather than a false analogy). [2]
This is a false analogy because it fails to account for the relevant differences between a planetary system and an atom.
Analogy blindness refers to the informal fallacy of misinterpretation of analogical reasoning, specifically when individuals mistakenly dismiss valid analogical comparisons. This cognitive error occurs when a person incorrectly perceives an analogy as an assertion of complete equivalence between two subjects, overlooking the nuanced, limited, or abstract similarities the analogy intends to highlight. Analogy blindness leads to the rejection of analogies based on surface-level differences, ignoring deeper structural or thematic parallels. [4] This can limit understanding and hinder the meaningful exploration of ideas.
Ben Kling gave the example of analogy blindness in the case of comparison between a volcano and a geyser. [4] A person objects to the analogy by complaining that one spits water and the other gushes magma and has killed people. In doing so they dismiss the similarities -- both geological and thermodynamic -- and so limit their understanding of both things.
The term encourages recognition of the complexities in analogical reasoning, promoting a more nuanced analysis of comparisons. The concept is associated with misunderstanding metaphor and special pleading. [5]
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a book by the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume, published in English in 1748. It was a revision of an earlier effort, Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, published anonymously in London in 1739–40. Hume was disappointed with the reception of the Treatise, which "fell dead-born from the press," as he put it, and so tried again to disseminate his more developed ideas to the public by writing a shorter and more polemical work.
The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator.
Reason is the capacity of applying logic consciously by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. It is associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, religion, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason is sometimes referred to as rationality.
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.
Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things because of a third element that they are considered to share.
First formulated by David Hume, the problem of induction questions our reasons for believing that the future will resemble the past, or more broadly it questions predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. This inference from the observed to the unobserved is known as "inductive inferences". Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them, thereby undermining one of the Enlightenment pillars of rationality.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a universal conclusion. A third type of inference is sometimes distinguished, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce, contradistinguishing abduction from induction.
The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements and prescriptive or normative statements, and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements.
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning, where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is at best probable, based upon the evidence given.
Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic.
Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.
The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God, originating in natural theology, which is often used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. The analogy states that a design implies a designer, by an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity. The watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. The original analogy played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. Prior to Paley, however, Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others from the time of the Scientific Revolution had each believed "that the physical laws he [each] had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watch, wherein the watchmaker is God."
Models of scientific inquiry have two functions: first, to provide a descriptive account of how scientific inquiry is carried out in practice, and second, to provide an explanatory account of why scientific inquiry succeeds as well as it appears to do in arriving at genuine knowledge. The philosopher Wesley C. Salmon described scientific inquiry:
The search for scientific knowledge ends far back into antiquity. At some point in the past, at least by the time of Aristotle, philosophers recognized that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between two kinds of scientific knowledge—roughly, knowledge that and knowledge why. It is one thing to know that each planet periodically reverses the direction of its motion with respect to the background of fixed stars; it is quite a different matter to know why. Knowledge of the former type is descriptive; knowledge of the latter type is explanatory. It is explanatory knowledge that provides scientific understanding of the world.
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.
A figurative analogy is a comparison about two things that are not alike but share only some common property. On the other hand, a literal analogy is about two things that are nearly exactly alike.
Plausible reasoning is a method of deriving new conclusions from given known premises, a method different from the classical syllogistic argumentation methods of Aristotelian two-valued logic. The syllogistic style of argumentation is illustrated by the oft-quoted argument "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, and therefore, Socrates is mortal." In contrast, consider the statement "if it is raining then it is cloudy." The only logical inference that one can draw from this is that "if it is not cloudy then it is not raining." But ordinary people in their everyday lives would conclude that "if it is not raining then being cloudy is less plausible," or "if it is cloudy then rain is more plausible." The unstated and unconsciously applied reasoning, arguably incorrect, that made people come to their conclusions is typical of plausible reasoning.
Structure-mapping theory is a theory of analogical reasoning, developed by Dedre Gentner, and for which she was awarded the 2016 David E. Rumelhart Prize for Contributions to the Theoretical Foundations of Human Cognition.
In philosophy, similarity or resemblance is a relation between objects that constitutes how much these objects are alike. Similarity comes in degrees: e.g. oranges are more similar to apples than to the moon. It is traditionally seen as an internal relation and analyzed in terms of shared properties: two things are similar because they have a property in common. The more properties they share, the more similar they are. They resemble each other exactly if they share all their properties. So an orange is similar to the moon because they both share the property of being round, but it is even more similar to an apple because additionally, they both share various other properties, like the property of being a fruit. On a formal level, similarity is usually considered to be a relation that is reflexive (everything resembles itself), symmetric (if a is similar to b then b is similar to a) and non-transitive (a need not resemble c despite a resembling b and b resembling c). Similarity comes in two forms: respective similarity, which is relative to one respect or feature, and overall similarity, which expresses the degree of resemblance between two objects all things considered. There is no general consensus whether similarity is an objective, mind-independent feature of reality, and, if so, whether it is a fundamental feature or reducible to other features. Resemblance is central to human cognition since it provides the basis for the categorization of entities into kinds and for various other cognitive processes like analogical reasoning. Similarity has played a central role in various philosophical theories, e.g. as a solution to the problem of universals through resemblance nominalism or in the analysis of counterfactuals in terms of similarity between possible worlds.
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
