Abstract
In this paper I show how there are two different argumentation schemes for argument from analogy, and show by means of examples how each scheme applies to different cases in its own distinctive way. One scheme is based on similarity, while the other scheme is based on factors shared or not shared by two cases that are being compared. The problem confronted in the paper is to study how the two schemes fit together. Are there really two different schemes for argument from analogy, or is the one scheme an extension of the other that applies at a different dialectical stage of the argumentation in a case? Since argument from analogy is fundamental in case-based reasoning and legal reasoning, there is some discussion of how the schemes fit into both topics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ashley, K. 1988. Arguing by analogy in law: A case-based model. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D. H. Helman, 205–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ashley, K. 2006. Case-based reasoning. In Information technology and lawyers, eds. A. R. Lodder and A. Oskamp, 23–60. Berlin: Springer.
Bex, F. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bex, F., and H. Prakken. 2010. Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, eds. P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter, 3–84. Amsterdam: IOS press.
Copi, I. M., and C. Cohen, C. 1990. Introduction to logic. 8th ed. New York: Macmillan. (First published 1953).
Gordon, T. F. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, eds. C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, 145–156. London: College Publications.
Gordon, T. F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171:875–896.
Guarini, M. 2004. A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24:153–168.
Guarini, M., S. P. Smith, and A. Moldovan. 2009. Resources for research on analogy: A multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Logic 29 (2): 84–197.
Hurley, P. J. 2003. A concise introduction to logic. Belmont: Wadsworth.
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 B. Garssen, 111–126. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lief, M. S., M. Caldwell, and B. Bryce. 1998. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Greatest closing arguments in modern law. New York: Scribner.
Pennington, N., and R. Hastie, 1992. Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2): 189–206.
Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the juror. The psychology of juror decision making, ed. R. Hastie, 192–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. C., and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Thomson, J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.
Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3): 217–246.
Walton, D. 2012. Similarity in arguments from analogy. Informal Logic 32 (2): 190–218.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for support of this work by Insight Grant 435-2012-0104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2014). Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy. In: Ribeiro, H. (eds) Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Argumentation Library, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06333-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06334-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)