Abstract
The logical empiricists held that an analogical hypothesis does not gain any acceptability from the analogy on which it is founded. On this view, the acceptability of a hypothesis cannot be discounted by criticizing the foundational analogy. Yet scientists commonly appear to level exactly this sort of criticism. If scientists are able to discount the acceptability of analogical hypotheses in this way, then the logical empiricist view is mistaken. I analyze four forms of analogy counterargument, disanalogy, misanalogy, counteranalogy, and false analogy, with examples from the debate over the asteroid impact hypothesis. These counterarguments do address the acceptability of analogical hypotheses, indicating that analogies can confer acceptability, confirmation notwithstanding. 1 Introduction 2 The asteroid impact hypothesis 3 Analogy counterarguments 3.1 Disanalogy 3.2 Misanalogy 3.3 Counteranalogy 3.4 False analogy 4 Acceptability 5 Conclusions.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/53.4.477
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Models and Analogies in Science.Mary B. Hesse - 1963 - University of Notre Dame Press.
Models and Analogies in Science.Mary Hesse - 1965 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16 (62):161-163.
Models and Analogies in Science.Mary B. Hesse - 1966 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 3 (3):190-191.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Varieties of Noise: Analogical Reasoning in Synthetic Biology.Tarja Knuuttila & Andrea Loettgers - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 48:76-88.
Why Test Animals to Treat Humans? On the Validity of Animal Models.Cameron Shelley - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (3):292-299.
Why Test Animals to Treat Humans? On the Validity of Animal Models.Cameron Shelley - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (3):292-299.
Scientific Analogies and Their Use in Teaching Science.Nahum Kipnis - 2005 - Science & Education 14 (3-5):199-233.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy of Science: Reasoning by Analogy in Theory Construction.Lindley Darden - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:147 - 165.
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.
Empathy and Analogy.Allison Barnes & Paul Thagard - 1997 - Dialogue 36 (4):705-720.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
55 ( #206,567 of 2,507,062 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,155 of 2,507,062 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes