ror.org/01cby8j38
Abstracts
Abstract
John Woods and Brent Hudak’s theory on arguments by analogy (1989), although correct in its meta-argumentative approach, gives rise to problems when we consider the possibility of weighing reasons. I contend that this is an outcome of construing the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of arguments compared in argumentation by analogy as inferences. An interpretation in terms of reasons is proposed here. The reasons-based approach solves these problems and allows the theory to be extended to account for a particular variant of argumentation by analogy in which the subjects of comparison are not arguments, but weighings of reasons.
Keywords:
- argumentation by analogy,
- inference model,
- reason model,
- weighing of reasons
Résumé
La théorie de John Woods et Brent Hudak sur les arguments par analogie (1989), bien que correcte dans son approche méta-argumentative, pose problèmes quand on considère la possibilité de peser les raisons. Je soutiens que c'est le résultat d’interpréter la relation entre les prémisses et la conclusion dans l'argumentation par analogie comme une inférences. Une interprétation en termes de raisons est proposée ici. L'approche fondée sur les raisons résout ces problèmes et permet d'étendre la théorie pour rendre compte d'une variante particulière de l'argumentation par analogie dans laquelle les sujets de comparaison ne sont pas des arguments, mais des pesées de raisons.
Download the article in PDF to read it. Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Alhambra, José. 2021. El argumento por analogía en la teoría de la argumentación. Quadripartita Ratio 5(10): 1-20. <http://www.quadripartitaratio.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/QR/article/view/117/424>.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Álvarez, María. 2017. Reasons for action: Justification, motivation, explanation. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, (spring 2017 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. URL accessed 18 January 2022: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/>Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bader, Ralf M. 2016. Conditions, modifiers and holism. In Weighing reasons, eds. Errol Lord and Barry Maguire, 27-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Dancy, Jonathan. 2004. Ethics without principles. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1983. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Faris Publications.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155-170.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gentner, Dedre, and Arthur B. Markman. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. The American Psychologist 52(1), 45-56.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Holyoak, Keith J. and Paul Thagard. 1995. Mental leaps. Analogy in creative thought. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Horty, John F. 2012. Reasons as defaults. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Juthe, André. 2019. Reconstructing complex pro/con argumentation. Argumentation, 33(3): 413-454.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lamond, Grant. 2005. Do precedents create rules? Legal Theory, 11(01): 1-26.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Leal, Fernando and Hubert Marraud. 2022. How philosophers argue. An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- López Villa, Agapito. 2020, June 21. El diablo y las vacunas [The devil and the vaccines]. Hoy. URL accessed 15 January 2022: <https://www.hoy.es/extremadura/diablo-vacunas-20200621112832-nt.html>.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Marraud, Hubert. 2013. ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumen-tos. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Marraud, Hubert. 2019. Holism of reasons and its consequences for argumentation theory. In Reasons to dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd ECA Confer-ence. Vol. III, eds. C. Dutilh Novaes, H. Jansen, J. A. van Laar, and B. Verheij, 167-180. London: College PublicationsGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Marraud, Hubert. 2021. En buena lógica. Una introducción a la teoría de la argumenta-ción. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Obrecht, Jas. 2018. Stone free. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pasquau, Miguel. 2012, May 24. Por las mismas razones [By the same reasons]. Cuaderno de Notas. URL accessed 14 January 2022: <https://www.miguelpasquau.es/por-la-misma-razon/>.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1971. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pollock, John L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(0): 481-518.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Scanlon, Thomas M. 2004. Reasons: A puzzling duality? In Reason and value: Themes from the moral philosophy of Joseph Raz, eds. R. Jay Wallace, Philip Pettit, Samuel Scheffler and Michael Smith, 231-246. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Searle, John R. 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Language, Mind and Knowledge, ed. K. Gunderson, 344-369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Thomson, Judith J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(3): 47-66.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Strasser, Christian and G. Aldo Antonelli. 2017. Non-monotonic Logic. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2017 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. URL accessed 10 January 2022: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/>.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Vega Reñón, Luis. 2014. El renacimiento de la teoría de la argumenta-ción. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1(9): 1-41.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wenzel, Joseph. 2006. Three perspectives on argument. Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, eds. R. Trapp and J. H. Schuetz, 9–26. New York: Idebate Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Woods, John and Brent Hudak. 1989. By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic 11(3): 125-139.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar