Phil 125

Fall 2010 Analogies - Introduction (for class discussion on Monday 11/15)

R. Feleppa

1. Analogical reasoning. Analogies compare different kinds of things which bear some similarities to each other. Analogies conclude that the things being compared are similar in some additional respect. Thus the basic form of an analogy is as follows. Premise: X and Y are similar in certain respects. Premise: X has some additional property P ----------------------------------- (probably) Conclusion: Y has the same (or a similar) property P* That is, the analogy will contain a comparative premise (or premises) stating that two different kinds of things have certain similarities. It will also contain another premise (or premises) stating that one of those things (the one which we better understand) has a certain property. From this the analogy infers that the other, less familiar thing has the same or similar property. Analogies make comparisons, but they are not the only kind of argument which involves comparisons. (See the discussion later in Chapter 5 of comparative inferences.) So before you begin looking for analogical weaknesses, be sure the argument is analogical in structure. It not only makes a comparison, it tries to expand our knowledge about Y, based on Ys similarity to X. What can make analogies difficult to identify is that they are very often enthymemes. (Very often the comparative premise is unstated.) But the structure of the analogy is such that an analogy can usually be reconstructed from the stated elements: even when only one of the components of the analogy is stated. (See examples below.) 2. Evaluating analogies. Like any argument, analogical arguments can have false premises, and this certainly weakens them. Analogical arguments can also be attacked by offering what are termed counter-analogies that is, analogical arguments which support conclusions opposed to that of the original analogy. However, the most revealing form of criticism is to point out some dissimilarity between the two types of things being compared which clearly weakens the analogys conclusion meaning that it makes the conclusion less probable or plausible than the argument seems to claim. Dissimilarities which weaken the conclusions of analogical arguments are called disanalogies. (Dont be confused about the terminology here: a disanalogy is not itself an analogy, it is a certain kind of weakness in analogies.) 3. What is a successful analogy? As much as we depend on analogies to expand our knowledge, even the best analogical arguments are relatively weak as compared to other kinds of inference. If an analogical argument is the best we can muster, then we run with it, while realizing that it doesnt offer strong proof for its conclusion. Analogical arguments are often especially useful is in suggesting fruitful lines of research. As such, they are said to be of heuristic value. Analogies are powerful tools for scientific progress, but they are also extremely useful in discussions of ethical and legal questions. This is especially so when society develops new technological capacities which often create situations and problems which are so novel that we find it difficult to address them by appeal to existing moral or legal codes. (See especially the examples below concerning computer technology and genetic engineering.) Here analogies can be very convincing. But even when they are not and even when they are relatively weak they can serve to direct our attention to problems worthy of further discussion.