Advertisement

The Uses of Analogies

  • Lilian Bermejo-Luque
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 25)

Abstract

This paper analyzes different types of similarity judgments, including a distinction between quantitative and qualitative analogies. Then, a survey of the most frequent uses of both types of analogical judgments. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the variety of criteria that we should employ in determining the value of a similarity judgment, depending on its function. This is particularly relevant for the appraisal of analogical argumentation. In particular, we argue for the importance of distinguishing between analogical argumentation and classificatory argumentation.

Keywords

Analogical argumentation Classificatory argumentation Explanatory analogies Exploratory analogies Qualitative analogies Quantitative analogies Uses of analogies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Javier Rodríguez Alcázar, Frank Zenker and David Hitchcock for helpful discussions on the topic of this paper. I am also indebted to the participants and audience of the Colloquium The Role of Analogy in Argumentative Discourse, held in Coimbra in May 2013, for a lively debate of some of the ideas presented here.

This work has been financed by a Ramón y Cajal Research Fellowship of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and by the research projects FFI2011-23125 and FFI2011-24414 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

References

  1. Bermejo-Luque, L. 2012. A unitary schema for arguments by analogy. Informal Logic 32 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. Black, M. 1954. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55:273–294.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. 1978. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5:31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Govier, T. 1989. Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11 (3): 141–152.Google Scholar
  5. Guarini, M. 2004. A defence of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24 (2): 153–168.Google Scholar
  6. Hofmann, B., J. H. Solbakk, and S. Holm. 2006. Teaching old dogs new tricks: The role of analogies in bioethical analysis and argumentation concerning new technologies. Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics 27 (5): 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Thompson, J. J. 1971. In defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.Google Scholar
  9. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Waller, B. 2001. Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21 (3): 199–218.Google Scholar
  11. Walton, D. 2012. Story similarity in arguments from analogy. Informal Logic 32 (2): 190–221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations