PHI 1101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Zicam, Scientific Control, Silverfish
14 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Chapter 11
Argument from analogy – an argument that something has an attribute because a similar
thing has that attribute
Ex.
Bill likes hutig. Therefore, his other “a likes hutig
The analogies in this argument are Bill and Sam. The conclusion-analogue (Sam) is argued to
have the attribute of interest (liking hunting) because the premise-analogue (Bill) is aid to
have it.
Rats lie loger if put o a alorie-restricted diet. Therefore, humans will love longer if put
on a calorie-restrited diet
Guidelines for Thinking Critically About an Argument from Analogy
• The more numerous and diversified the similarities are between the premise-
analogue and the conclusion-analogue, the stronger the argument.
• The more numerous and diversified the differences between the premise-analogue
between the conclusion-analogue, the weaker the argument
• If there is more than one premise-analogue, the more numerous and diversified the
premise-analogues are, the stronger the argument
o Example:
▪ Bill likes hutig. Therefore, his rother “a likes hutig
▪ Bill, his sister “arah, the oldest rother i the fail, Peter, ad oth
the parents like hunting. Therefore, the other brother Sam likes
hutig
▪ The second argument is stronger because there are now five premise-
analogues (Bill, Sarah, Peter, and the two parents)
• If there is more than one premise-analogue, the fewer the contrary premise-
analogues, the stronger the argument, and the more the contrary premise-
analogues, the weaker the argument
o Example:
▪ Bill, his sister “arah, ad oth parets like hutig. But the oldest
brother in the family, Peter, does not. Therefore, the other brother
likes hutig
▪ The argument is weaker than the previous one because it contains a
contrary premise-analogue
Attacking the analogy – the time-honored strategy for rebutting an argument from analogy
(showing the premise-analogue or analogues are not as similar to the conclusion-analogue
as stated or implied)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
22
PHI 1101 Full Course Notes
Verified Note
22 documents
Document Summary
Argument from analogy an argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute. Ex. (cid:862)bill likes hu(cid:374)ti(cid:374)g. therefore, his (cid:271)other a(cid:373) likes hu(cid:374)ti(cid:374)g(cid:863) The analogies in this argument are bill and sam. The conclusion-analogue (sam) is argued to have the attribute of interest (liking hunting) because the premise-analogue (bill) is aid to have it. (cid:862)rats li(cid:448)e lo(cid:374)ger if put o(cid:374) a (cid:272)alorie-restricted diet. Therefore, humans will love longer if put on a calorie-restri(cid:272)ted diet(cid:863) Therefore, the other brother sam likes hu(cid:374)ti(cid:374)g(cid:863: the second argument is stronger because there are now five premise- analogues (bill, sarah, peter, and the two parents) Therefore, the other brother likes hu(cid:374)ti(cid:374)g(cid:863: the argument is weaker than the previous one because it contains a contrary premise-analogue. Attacking the analogy the time-honored strategy for rebutting an argument from analogy (showing the premise-analogue or analogues are not as similar to the conclusion-analogue as stated or implied)
