The Argument by Analogy within Theory of Argumentation.
Abstract
The aim of this work is to propose a classification of the main approaches to argument by analogy within the field of argumentation theory. The classification criterion is the distinction between inferential relationship and argumentative scheme. These notions allows us to organize the proposals in a manageable and, at the same time illuminating way, since they link this type of argument with pivotal questions in argumentation theory. To make this link clear, the most representative proposals within each category are expose and presented from real examples of arguments by analogy.References
Barker, E. M. (1989). «Beardsley's Theory of Analogy». Informal Logic, 11 (3): 185-194.
Barker, S. F. (1965). The Elements of Logic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Beardsley, M. (1956). Thinking Straight. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2012). «A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy. Informal Logic, 32 (1): 1-24.
- (2014). «Deduction without Dogmas: The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation». Informal Logic, 34(3): 311-336.
Brewer, S. (1996). «Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragamatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy». Harvard Law Review, 109: 923-1038.
Botting, D. (2012) «The paradox of analogy». Informal Logic, 32, 1: 98–115.
- (2016), «The Logical Evaluation of Arguments». Argumentation 30, 2: 167–180.
- (2017). «The Cumulative Force of Analogies». Logic and Logical Philosophy 17, 3: 1–37.
Copi, I. M., y Cohen, C. (1964 [2007]). Introducción a la lógica. México: Limusa.
Doury, M. (2009). «Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The case of Comparative Arguments». En: F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues. Dordrecht: Springer. 141–154.
Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, J. A. (2002 [1992]). Argumentación, comunicación y falacias. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Católica de Chile.
Ezquiaga Ganuzas, F. J. (2006). La argumentación interpretativa en la justicia electoral mexicana. México D.F.: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación.
Garssen, B. (2009). «Comparing the Incomparable: Figurative Analogies in a Dialectical Testing Procedure». En van Eemeren, F. H. and B. Garssen (eds.). Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Springer.
Govier, T. (1985). A Practical Study of Argument. London: Thomson Learning.
- (1989). «Analogies and Missing Premises». Informal Logic, 11(3): 141-152.
Guarini, M. (2004). «A Defence of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments». Informal Logic, Vol. 24, No.2, 153-168.
Juthe, A. (2005) «Argument by Analogy», Argumentation 19: 1-27.
- (2014). «A Systematic Review of Classifications of Arguments by Analogy». In: Henrique Jales Ribeiro (ed.) Systematic Aprouches to Argument by Analogy. Amsterdam: Springer.
- (2015). «Analogical argument schemes and complex argumentation», Informal Logic 35, 3: 378–445.
- (2016a). «Classifications of Arguments by Analogy Part I. A comprehensive Review of Proposals for Classifying Arguments by Analogy». Cogency, 8(2), 51-99. Retrieved from http://cogency.udp.cl/index.php/cogency/article/view/281
- Juthe, A. (2016b). «Argumentation by Analogy: A Systematic Analytical Study of an Argument Scheme», Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- (2019) «A Defense of Analogy Inference as Sui Generis», Logic and Logical Philosophy, 1-51.
Marraud, H. (2007). «La analogía como transferencia argumentativa». Theoria, 59: 167-
- (2014). «Argumentos a fortiori». Theoria, 0(79): 99-112.
- (2019). «Sobre la definición de los argumentos conductivos». Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 51(152), 61- 84.
Mill, J. S. (1917 [1843]). Sistema de lógica demostrativa e inductiva. Madrid: Rivadeneyra.
Vega Reñón, L. (2011). «Esquema argumentativo». En Vega Reñón, L. y Olmos, P. (Eds). Compendio de lógica, argumentación y retórica. Madrid: Trotta.
- (2014). «El renacimiento de la teoría de la argumentación». Revista Iberoamericana De Argumentación, 0(9), 1-41. Recuperado de https://revistas.uam.es/index.php/ria/article/view/8157.
Perelman, Ch.; Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1989 [1958]). Tratado de la argumentación. La nueva retórica. Julia Sevilla y Marta Tordesillas (trad.). Madrid: Gredos.
Shecaira, F. P. (2013). «Analogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of a Deductivist Analysis». Informal Logic, 33 (3): 406-437.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003 [1958]). Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Península.
Waller, B. (2001). «Classifying and Analyzing Analogies», Informal Logic, 21(3): 199-218.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C. y Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, J. y Hudak, B. (1989). «By Parity of Reasoning», Informal Logic 11(3), 125-139.
- (1992). «Verdi is the Puccini of Music», Synthese 92(0): 189-220.
Zeleznikow, J. y Hunter, D. (1995). «Deductive, Inductive and Analogical Reasoning in Legal Decision Support Systems». Information & Communications Technology Law 4, 2: 141-159.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
