Arguments from Analogy Flashcards

Study Notes

Analogies utilize inductive reasoning, drawing conclusions based on similarities between two different things.
Example: Comparing a new car to an old, reliable model to infer potential reliability of the new model.
Arguments from analogy consist of three premises highlighting the comparison.

Disjunctive Syllogism: A logical structure that involves a disjunction (either/or statement) and deduces one of the alternatives is false.
Modus Ponens: A valid argument form where if 'A implies B' and 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true.
Denying the Antecedent: A fallacy that occurs when one assumes that if 'A implies B' and 'A' is false, then 'B' must also be false.
Modus Tollens: A valid form that concludes 'not A' from 'A implies B' and 'not B'.
Affirming the Consequent: A fallacy which wrongly infers 'A' is true from 'A implies B' and 'B' is true.
Hypothetical Syllogism: Involves two conditional statements to derive a new conditional statement.

Cogent: Describes a strong, well-supported argument.
Fallacious: Refers to arguments that contain errors in reasoning, rendering them invalid.

Arguments from analogy are inherently inductive, differing from deductive reasoning.
They are commonly employed in legal and moral reasoning contexts, establishing the similarities between cases for judgments.

Analogies are assessed as strong or weak, rather than valid or invalid.
Evaluating analogies allows for flexibility in reasoning while maintaining criteria for credibility.

A standard form for arguments from analogy typically consists of identifying properties shared between objects, followed by the conclusion that the first object will likely share another property.
Essential features include:
- Three premises are required.
- Initial premises outline comparable objects and their known shared properties.
- The conclusion draws on an additional property presumed to be shared based on the established similarities.