Advertisement

Dimensions of Analogy

  • Paul Thagard
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 197)

Abstract

Analogy has been studied by many researchers in philosophy, psychology, and artificial intelligence. My aim in this chapter is to sketch the conceptual geography of computational research on analogy and to address some of the important issues that arise there. I shall try to identify the major dimensions along which various investigations of analogy differ. These chiefly concern how analogies are represented, how they are retrieved from memory, how they are exploited, and how learning takes place as the result of analogy. Particular attention will be paid to the different degrees to which different approaches along the different dimensions use syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic techniques. Important work on analogy has been done by philosophers such as Hesse (1966) and by psychologists, but for reasons that will be sketched in the next section, I shall concentrate here on computationa. approaches to analogy. The philosophical question of the role of analogies in inference will, however, be addressed.

Keywords

Analogical Reasoning Spreading Activation Conceptual Network Cognitive Science SOciety Direct Retrieval 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognitio., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. and Thompson, R. (1986), Use of analogy in a production system architecture. Unpublished manuscript. Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, A. and Feigenbaum, E. (1981), Handbook of Artificial Intelligenc., vol. 1, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  4. Burstein, M. (1986), ‘Concept formation by incremental analogical reasoning and debrugging’. In R. Michalski, J. Carbonell and T. Mitchell, eds., Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approac., vol. 2, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 3 51–369.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Li., Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbonell, J. (1986), ‘Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition’. In R. Michalski, J. Carbonell and T. Mitchell, eds., Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approac., vol. 2, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 371–392.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F. (1975), ‘A spreading activation theory of semantic processing’, Psychological Revie. 8., 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, T. (1985), Analogy. Center for the Study of Language and Information Informal Note IN-CSLI-85–4. Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., and Gentner, D. (1986), ‘The structure-mapping engine’, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligenc., vol. 1, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 272–277.Google Scholar
  10. Gentner, D. (1983), ‘Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy’, Cognitive Scienc. ., 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentner, D. and Toupin, C. (1986), ‘Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy’, Cognitive Scienc. 1., 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, R. (1986a), Understanding analogical reasoning: Computational approaches. Irvine Computational Intelligence Project Technical Report 86–11. Irvine, CA: Univesity of California at Irvine Department of Information and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, R. (1986b), Understanding analogical reasoning: Viewpoints from psychology and related disciplines. Irvine Computational Intelligence Project Technical Report 8610. Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine Department of Information and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  14. Hammond, K. (1986), ‘The use of remindings in planning’, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Societ., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 442–451.Google Scholar
  15. Hesse, M. (1966), Models and Analogies in Scienc., Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holland, J., Holyoak, K., Nisbett, R., and Thagard, P. (1986), Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discover., Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Holyoak, K. J. and Koh, K. (1987), ‘Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer’, Memory and Cognitio. 1., 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holyoak, K. and Thagard, P. (1986), ‘A computational model of analogical problem solving’, to appear in S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (eds.), Analogy, Similarity, and Though..Google Scholar
  19. Holyoak, K. and Thagard, P. (1987), Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction: A computational theory. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Kass, A. (1986), ‘Modifying explanations to understand stories’, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Societ., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 691–696.Google Scholar
  21. Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1985a), Analogy — from a unified perspective. Laboratory for Computer Science Research Technical Report ML-TR-3. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  22. Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1985b), ‘Purpose-directed analogy’, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Societ., Irvine, CA: Cognitive Science Society. pp. 150–159.Google Scholar
  23. Kolodner, J., Simpson, R., and Sycara, Cyranski K. (1985), A process model of casebased reasoning in problem solving. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Information and Computer Science Technical Report 85/01.Google Scholar
  24. Leake, D. and Owens, C. (1986), ‘Organizing memory for explanation’, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Societ., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 710–715. Google Scholar
  25. Minsky, M. (1975), ‘A framework for representing knowledge’, in P. H. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Visio., New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, C. (1938), Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Neustadt, R. and May, E. (1986), Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972), Human Problem Solvin., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Russell, S. (1987), ‘Analogy and single-instance generalization’, in P. Langley (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learnin., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 390–398.Google Scholar
  30. Schank, R. C. (1982), Dynamic Memor., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Thagard, P. (1978), ‘The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice’, Journal of Philosoph. 7., 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thagard, P. (1984), ‘Frames, knowledge, and inference’, Synthes. 6., 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thagard, P. (1987), The conceptual structure of the chemical revolution. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  34. Thagard, P. (1988), Computational Philosophy of Scienc., Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Weitzenfeld, J. (1986), ‘Valid reasoning by analogy’, Philosophy of Scienc. 5., 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Winston, P. H. (1980), ‘Learning and reasoning by analogy’, Communications of the AC. 2., 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winston, P. H. (1982), ‘Learning new principles from precedents and exercises’, Artificial Intelligenc. 1., 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Thagard
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Science LaboratoryPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations