Advertisement

Introduction

  • Henrique Jales Ribeiro
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 25)

Abstract

The present volume assembles a relevant set of studies of argument by analogy, which address this topic in a systematic fashion, either from an essentially theoretical perspective, or from the perspective of it being applied to different fields like politics, literature, law, medicine, science in general, and philosophy. All result from original research conducted by their authors for this publication. Thus, broadly speaking, this is an exception which we find worthy of occupying a special place in the sphere of the bibliography on the argument by analogy. In effect, most of the contexts of the publications on this topic focus on specific areas, for example everyday discourse, science or law theory, while underestimating or sometimes even ignoring other interdisciplinary scopes, as is the case of literature, medicine or philosophy. The idiosyncrasy of this volume is that the reader and the researcher may follow the development of different theoretical outlooks on argument by analogy, while measuring the scope of its (greater or lesser) application to the aforementioned areas as a whole; which, in our view, is extraordinarily positive and enriching. However, how this can be implemented is not so clear; for example, what argument by analogy in medicine or in philosophy is, when assessed and interpreted in the light of contemporary argumentation theories, is not quite straightforward; which is surely a challenge and an important stimulus for developing these theories later.

Keywords

Argument by analogy Interdisciplinarity Law Linguistics Literature Medicine Philosophy Politics Science 

References

  1. Adam, J.-M. 1999. Linguistique textuelle: Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  2. Bermejo-Luque, L. 2012. A unitary schema for arguments by analogy. Informal Logic 32 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, S. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109 (5): 923–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronckart, J.-P. 1999. Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos. Por um interacionismo sociodiscursivo. São Paulo: EDUC.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W. R. 1989. Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic XI (3): 161–172.Google Scholar
  6. Copi, I. M., and C. Cohen. 1994. Introduction to logic. 9th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (First published 1953 and 1961 by Macmillan Publishing Company).Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Doury, M. 2009. Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 141–155. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ducrot, O. 1973. La preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
  10. Ducrot, O., and J.-C. Anscombre. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: De Gruyter/Foris.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, Frans H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorts, F. Snoeck Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Finocchiaro, M. 2005. Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Garssen, B. 2009. Comparing the incomparable. Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Govier, T. 1989. Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11 (3): 141–152.Google Scholar
  18. Govier, T. 2010. A practical study of arguments. 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  19. Guarini, M. 2004. A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24:153–168.Google Scholar
  20. Hastings, A. C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. PhD diss., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Hurley, P. J. 2003. A concise introduction to logic. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  22. Kienpointner, M. 2012. When figurative analogies fail: Fallacious uses of arguments from analogy. In Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 111–126. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lief, M. S., M. Caldwell, and B. Bryce. 1998. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: Greatest closing arguments in modern law. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  24. Mill, J. S. 1979. An examination of William Hamilton’s philosophy and of the principal philosophical questions discussed in his writings. In The collected works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson, vol. IX. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Routledge/Kegan Paul (Originally published 1889).Google Scholar
  25. Perelman, C. 1989. Rhétoriques. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  26. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans: Wilkinson, J., and Weaver, P.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. French edition: Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  27. Posner, R. A. 2006. Book review. Reasoning by analogy. Cornell Law Review 91:761–774.Google Scholar
  28. Prade, H., and G. Richard. 2009. Analogy, paralogy and reverse analogy: Postulates and inferences. In KI 2009, LNAI 5803, eds. B. Mertsching, M. Hund, and Z. Aziz, 306–314. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Prade, H., and G. Richard. 2010. Analogical proportions: Another logical view. In Research and development in intelligent systems XXVI, ed. M. Bramer, et al., 306–314. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Ribeiro, H. J. 2012. Introduction: The birth of argumentation theory in the XXIst century. In Inside arguments: Logic and the study of argumentation, ed. H. Ribeiro, 1–21. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Tarello, G. 1980. L’ interpretazione della legge. Milano: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  32. Thomson, J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.Google Scholar
  33. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes from presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, D. 2012. Story similarity in arguments from analogy. Informal Logic 32:190–221.Google Scholar
  36. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weitzenfeld, J. S. 1984. Valid reasoning by analogy. Philosophy of Science 51:137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woods, J., and B. Hudak. 1989. By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic XI (3): 125–139.Google Scholar
  39. Wreen, M. J. 2007. A second form of argument from analogy. Theoria 73 (3): 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Communication and Information, Faculty of LettersUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations