Abstract
In this chapter, I inquire into the structure of analogical arguments . I begin by considering several historical meanings of analogy, understood as a semantic relation, an act of cognition, and a kind of argument. I then proceed to provide a general characterization of arguments from analogy and identify four essential aspects thereof: the problem situation , prima facie similarity , relevant similarity, and the solution. In the remaining part of the chapter, I analyze these aspects in more detail.
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
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Aristotle (1960), Metaphysics, 1003a34ff.
- 2.
Aristotle (1991), History of Animals, 486b.
- 3.
This line of research was hugely influenced by the work of George Lakoff. See Lakoff and Johnson (2003).
- 4.
My presentation of Bohr’s model is somewhat simplified. For more details see ibid., 335–341.
- 5.
I am using Andrzej Wiśniewski’s (1995) theory of questions.
- 6.
In addition to evocation, Wiśniewski (1995, 12–13) speaks also of the generation of questions by sets of sentences.
- 7.
I considerably simplify Wiśniewski’s account of such questions. For a detailed presentation of his view, see Wiśniewski (1995, 70–101).
- 8.
Werner Heisenberg discovered quantum mechanics when he was suffering from a severe form of hay fever. Cf. Pais (1991, 275).
- 9.
It should once more be stressed that this is a grossly simplified account of Bohr’s discovery.
- 10.
The identification of theory-based analogy is inspired by Bench-Capon and Sartor (2001).
- 11.
References
Alexy, R. 2007. The Weight Formula. In Studies in the philosophy of law 3: Frontiers of the economic analysis of law, ed. J. Stelmach, B. Brożek, and W. Załuski, 9–27. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
Alexy, R. 2010. Two or Three? In On the Nature of Legal Principles. ed. M. Borowski. ARSP-Beiheft, vol. 119, 9–18.
Ando, C. 2015. Exemplum, analogy, and precedent in roman law. In Exemplarity and singularity, ed. M. Lowrie, and S. Ludemanm. London-New York: Routledge.
Ashworth, J.E. Medieval theories of analogy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2013 Edition, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/analogy-medieval/.
Aristotle. Metaphysics, trans. R. Hope. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1960. (1st ed.).
Aristotle. 1991. Historia animalium (History of animals), trans. A.L. Peck. Harvard Cambridge, MA: University Press
Bartha, P. Analogy and analogical reasoning. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2013 Edition, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/reasoning-analogy/.
Belnap, N.D. 1969. Aqvist’s aorrections-accumulating question sequences. In Philosophical logic, ed. J.W. Davis et al. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and G. Sartor. 2001. Theory based explanation of case law domains. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 12–21. New York: ACM Press.
Bonjour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brewer, S. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1028.
Brożek, B. 2007. Rationality and discourse. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Brożek, B. 2011. Legal logic. myths and challenges. In Theory of imperatives from different points of view, ed. A. Brożek, J.J. Jadacki and B. Zarnic, 49–59. Warszawa: Semper.
Cicero (1949). On invention, the best kind of orator. Topics, trans. H.M. Hubbell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–170.
Hage, J. 2001. Legal logic: Its existence, nature and use. In Pluralism and law, ed. A. Soeteman, 347–373. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hage, J. 2005. The logic of analogy in the law. Argumentation 19: 401–415.
Hage, J. 2013. Three Kinds of coherentism. In Coherence: Insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence, ed. M. Araszkiewicz, and J. Savelka, 1–32. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hesse, M. 1966. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
Hochschild, J.P. 2010. The semantics of analogy. Rereading Cajetan’s ‘De Nominum Analogia’. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
Holyoak, K.J., and P. Thagard. 1995. Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holyoak, K.J. 2012. Analogy and relational reasoning. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. K.J. Holyoak, and R.G. Morrison, 234–259. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolodner, J.L. 1993. Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA.: Morgan Kaufmann.
Lakoff, G., and R.E. Núñez. 2000. Where mathematics comes from. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Pais, A. 1991. Niels Bohr’s times in physics, philosophy, and polity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pal, S.K., and S.C.K. Shiu. 2004. Foundations of soft case-based reasoning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Prakken, H. 1997. Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1998. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.
Roth, B., and B. Verheij. 2004. Cases and dialectical arguments—An approach to case-based reasoning. In OTM workshops 2004, ed. R. Meersman, et al., 634–651. Dordrecht: Springer.
Weinreb, L.L. 2005. Legal reason: The use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Winston, P.H. 1980. Learning and reasoning by analogy. Communications of the ACM 23: 689–703.
Wiśniewski, A. 1995. The posing of questions. logical foundations of erotetic inference. Dordrecht: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brożek, B. (2018). Analogical Arguments. In: Bongiovanni, G., Postema, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Valentini, C., Walton, D. (eds) Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9451-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9452-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)