Analogy

Figurative and
Argumentative
 General Characteristics
 Analogy compares items via
certain key similarities in order
to:
 a. Make something more
understandable and:
 b. As part of the premises to
argue for a conclusion.
 Everyday Example
 I am going to buy a new pair of shoes or
choose a class for next quarter. Focus on
similarities.
 This pair of shoes is of the same make,
composition, and style as the old pair and
the old pair was comfortable and lasted a
long time and thus this new pair ought to
also be comfortable and last.
 Another Example
 I have taken three Psychology
classes with Dr. Pigeon and they
were all enjoyable and good and
thus this new Psychology class
taught by Dr. Pigeon ought also to
be enjoyable and good.
 Evaluation or Criticism
 Ask for relevant differences and
how they affect the conclusion.
 E.g. The new pair of shoes is
made of an artificial material
rather than leather. The stitching
in the new shoes is much looser
rather than tight.
Criticism and Questions
 The new psychology class is
about behavior modification in
rats while the other classes were
about human psychology.
 The new class meets at 8 a.m.
while the others were afternoon
classes.
 Argumentative Analogy
Two types of analogical argument
1. Inductive analogical argument
2.Deductive analogical argument
Thus, there are two ways to
evaluate or critcize analogical
arguments.
 Inductive Analogy
 An inductive analogy draws a
comparison between cases and
then suggests that since the
analogy holds in some
respects, it is likely to hold in
other respects.- only probable
 Key Evaluative Questions
 What is the intended analogy?
 What are the relevant similarities?

 What are the relevant differences?

 Do these relevant differences weaken

the conclusion?
 Relevancy= impact on the
conclusion.
 Characteristics- Induction
 New evidence makes a difference-
can strengthen or weaken the
conclusion.
 I get bored by foreign movies, so I
will get bored by this one.- suppose
the new one does not have subtitles
and has an American star?
 Examples
 That the world was created by the
chance coming together of atoms is
as likely as producing a excellent
essay by allowing the letters of the
alphabet to come together on their
own.
 Another Example
 Just as the colonies of America
were united by a Constitution
into the United States so it is
likely that we can unite the
countries of Eastern Europe by
a constitution.
 Deductive Analogical Argument
 Deductive analogical arguments do not
depend on additional evidence.
 They use an analogy to point to a
principle that it is assumed we all accept
and then claims that in order to be
consistent you must accept an analogous
case that also fits under the principle.
 Criticizing Deductive
 Focus on the Principle
expressed in the analogy
 Question- Is the principle
relevant to the cases cited in the
argument?
 A Deductive Example
 We should not require people to wear seatbelts when
they drive or ride in their cars. After all, if you
choose not to wear your seatbelt, that is certainly
hazardous to your health and it may be foolish, but
it doesn’t harm anyone but yourself. Requiring
adults to wear seatbelts is like requiring people to
exercise regularly. Like not wearing your seatbelt, it
may be foolish not to exercise, but it doesn’t harm
anyone except you. Since, we think requiring
people to get regular exercise would be wrong, we
ought to also conclude that requiring people to wear
seatbelts is wrong.
 How do we criticize?
 What is the principle?= It is
right to require people to do
special things as a condition of
use of public facilities.
 Do the compared cases fit
under this principle?
 Continual Criticism
 Seatbelt use is required as a
special condition for use of
public facilities—requiring
exercise is not. The
exercise case does not fit-
weak analogy.
 Possible Response
 Could not accept this principle
and restate a different principle,
e.g., We should not accept
paternalistic restrictions on
behavior.
 Could say-should require both-
promote safety and health.
 Figurative Analogy
 Analogy is used to explain and make
something more understandable.

“Trying to find the cause of cancer is like trying

to find a feather in a haystack while the wind is
blowing: each time you think you have found it,
the whole darn stack shifts its composition and
you are back to picking up the straws little by
little.”
 Figurative Analogy
 In a solid, the molecules can be pictured as a
crowd of men all doing physical exercises-
the “daily dozen”- without moving from the
spot where they stand….In a liquid the
molecules can be pictured as a swarm of
men gathered together in a hall at a
crowded reception; they are tightly wedged,
but each works his way through the others,
with many a push and apology.
Analogical Literalism
 This fallacy occurs when you
treat the analogy too literally and
then dismiss the argument or
analogy on that ground.
 Thus, one might try to dismiss the
Thompson argument about
abortion because a fetus is
nothing like a violinist.
 Thompson analogy
 What is the conclusion? A woman
who is pregnant because of a
rape has a right to terminate.
 Comparison- woman supporting a
fetus that is a result of a rape and
an individual who is supporting
the life of a violinist as a result of
a kidnap.
Thompson-continued
 Similarities: (1) Both forced into
the situation of supporting the life
of another. (2) Only way to escape
is allowing other person to die.
 Principle: No one has the
obligation to sustain the life of
another when one has done
nothing to take on that obligation.
 Counter to Thompson
 Remote cabin in the woods example- p.
341- Obligation to save the life of the
kidnap victim though did nothing to
take on the obligation. (Obligation-
innocent victims of war, floods. etc.
 New principle: One has not special
obligation to allow his/her body to be
used for another’s benefit. (-violinist
again- organ donation, etc.