Epstein explained that reasoning by analogy is arguing with comparison. "On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same"(253).
At first when I read the definition of " Judging Analogies" on page 256, I was a bit lost and the book didn't explained really clearly. So I went online and find more information about it. Here is the link to the web site:
-http://www.gregcaughill.com/philosophy-wiki/philosophy-course-notes/104-arguments-by-analogy.html
According to Greg Caughill, the writer of the web site, said that there are four main flaws when judging analogies. 1) It could have a false premise. 2) Lookout for equivocations. 3) Unstated premises. 4) Lookout for fallacies. Then Caughill states that there are two questions that we might ask when judging an analogy:
A) Are the shared features relevant? If not, analogy fails B) Are they sufficient to establish the connection? No, the subjects are too much alike. Or no, they are way too different to make analogy.
No comments:
Post a Comment