What Constitutes a Formal Analogy?

In Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 1-8 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There is ample justification for having analogical material in standardized tests for graduate school admission, perhaps especially for law school. We think that formal-analogy questions should compare different scenarios whose structure is the same in terms of the number of objects and the formal properties of their relations. The paper deals with this narrower question of how legitimately to have formal analogy test items, and the broader question of what constitutes a formal analogy in general.

Similar books and articles

Phenomenological Argumentative Structure.Gilbert Plumer - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):173-189.
Analogy counterarguments and the acceptability of analogical hypotheses.Cameron Shelley - 2002 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):477-496.
Taking Analogical Inference Seriously: Darwin's Argument from Artificial Selection.C. Kenneth Waters - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:502 - 513.
Analogy and confirmation theory.Mary Hesse - 1964 - Philosophy of Science 31 (4):319-327.
The Role of Focus in Aquinas’s Doctrine of Analogy.Antonio Donato - 2003 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:289-301.
Programs, bugs, DNA and a design argument.Alexander R. Pruss - 2008 - In Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.), New waves in philosophy of religion. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-31

Downloads
806 (#17,904)

6 months
115 (#30,428)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gilbert Edward Plumer
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Valid reasoning by analogy.Julian S. Weitzenfeld - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (1):137-149.
The Logic Of Analogy.William Sacksteder - 1974 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 7 (4):234-252.
Analogy: Justification for Logic.William Sacksteder - 1979 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 12 (1):21 - 40.
A Review of the LSAT Using Literature on Legal Reasoning.Gilbert E. Plumer - 2000 - Law School Admission Council Computerized Testing Report 97 (8):1-19.
Conclusive analogical argument.R. O. Anderson - 1969 - Revue Internationale de Philosophie 23 (1):44-57.

View all 6 references / Add more references