{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

May_21 [Compatibility Mode] - Thursday May 21 Today we will...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Thursday, May 21 Today, we will finally begin Inductive Arguments - Ch. 11 – Arguments from Analogy - 11.2 Argument by Analogy - 11.3 Analyzing Arguments by Analogy - 11.4 Refutation by Logical Analogy - As well as some other stuff, time permitting.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Argument by Analogy (con't) Every analogical argument begins by noting the similarity of two or more entities in one or more respects. The argument then proceeds by arguing that these entities will be alike in further respects. - So, for example, an argument that my new Honda will be a good car because my previous Hondas (all three of them) were good cars begins by noting that there is a commonality between four entities (the new Honda and my three old Hondas) – mainly, all were made by Honda. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that there will be some further commonality (that of being a good car) that all four cars will share as well.
Background image of page 2
Argument by Analogy (con't) We can say that, where a, b, c, and so on are entities, and P, Q, R, and so on are attributes, an argument from analogy is something like: a, b, c, and d all have the attributes P and Q. a, b, and c all have attribute R. Therefore, d will probably have attribute R.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
11.4 Refutation by Logical Analogy A refutation by logical analogy is a refutation of an argument by finding an argument of the same form as the one you're refuting, where the argument moves from reasonable premises to a false conclusion. This is a criticism of the form of the argument. This shows that the argument being criticized fails to provide sufficient support for its premises. - This is the basis of much of what we did in chapters 8 and 9. However, the principle works for inductive arguments, too. We can criticize a refutation by logical analogy by pointing out that the two argument forms are not identical. Disanalogies between the two argument forms are important. Take a look at pg. 505 at the bottom – are there any problems with this refutation by logical analogy?
Background image of page 4
12.1 Cause and Effect
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}