1542:
176:
conclusion, then the amount and variety of relevant differences have to weaken it. Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity — snowflakes for example — but are not the result of intelligent direction. But even if the snowflake's order and complexity might not have direction, their causes might. So this falsifies the statement but
288:
42:
from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning since the two products share a maker and are therefore both perceived as "bad". It is also the basis of much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats are based on the fact that some physiological similarities between rats and humans implies some further similarity (e.g. possible reactions to a drug).
217:, who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not at all relevant to the property of laziness (although this in particular is an example of a
41:
are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further
175:
Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant differences. For instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random but a watch is not. This form of argument is called "disanalogy". If the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical
264:
of misinterpretation of analogical reasoning, specifically when individuals mistakenly dismiss valid analogical comparisons. This cognitive error occurs when a person incorrectly perceives an analogy as an assertion of complete equivalence between two subjects, overlooking the nuanced, limited, or
171:
The logic behind the watchmaker argument states that you cannot assume that a complex and precise object like a watch was created through some random process. We can easily infer that such objects had an intelligent creator who planned its use. Therefore, we ought to draw the same conclusion for
268:
Ben Kling gave the example of analogy blindness in the case of comparison between a volcano and a geyser. A person objects to the analogy by complaining that one spits water and the other gushes magma and has killed people. In doing so they dismiss the similarities—both geological and
265:
abstract similarities the analogy intends to highlight. Analogy blindness leads to the rejection of analogies based on surface-level differences, ignoring deeper structural or thematic parallels. This can limit understanding and hinder the meaningful exploration of ideas.
180:. Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument. For instance, objects such as watches are often the result of the labour of groups of individuals. Thus, the reasoning used by the teleological argument would seem to agree with
50:
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis concluding that they also share some further property. The structure or form may be generalised like so:
159:
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by using disanalogy, using counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy. To understand how one might analyse an argument from analogy, consider the
272:
The term encourages recognition of the complexities in analogical reasoning, promoting a more nuanced analysis of comparisons. The concept is associated with misunderstanding metaphor and
17:
659:
664:
425:
1042:
699:
541:
249:
This is a false analogy because it fails to account for the relevant differences between a planetary system and an atom.
853:
381:
1581:
1461:
669:
1576:
1566:
1497:
1473:
1062:
1074:
818:
81:. Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the
1084:
1492:
1049:
945:
1487:
1327:
795:
631:
587:
1507:
1322:
838:
534:
311:
38:
1429:
1419:
1369:
1343:
1119:
993:
960:
861:
843:
743:
592:
574:
1467:
1455:
1435:
1424:
1339:
1152:
1128:
906:
758:
684:
597:
373:
218:
1482:
1386:
1350:
1265:
1221:
1057:
988:
778:
607:
582:
326:
316:
301:
177:
8:
1360:
1259:
1206:
1182:
1105:
1008:
940:
866:
679:
674:
651:
626:
34:
1545:
1478:
1292:
1177:
1162:
1109:
1069:
1018:
955:
914:
891:
871:
774:
618:
602:
527:
161:
1364:
1201:
1191:
1167:
1144:
1100:
1026:
978:
936:
896:
738:
733:
555:
505:
501:
421:
377:
293:
193:
1571:
1514:
1355:
1254:
1196:
1134:
929:
808:
803:
788:
753:
713:
641:
636:
497:
331:
273:
261:
229:
214:
203:
485:
1271:
1235:
1211:
1031:
1003:
983:
831:
799:
783:
748:
415:
1172:
1157:
1079:
998:
924:
564:
1560:
1297:
1187:
919:
882:
826:
694:
689:
321:
78:
245:
Therefore, planets in a planetary system jump instantly from orbit to orbit.
1309:
728:
519:
509:
1502:
1279:
1216:
1412:
1406:
1333:
1245:
209:
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the
181:
165:
77:
for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of
1519:
1303:
1287:
970:
452:
306:
235:
1449:
1397:
242:
orbit a nucleus, and electrons jump instantly from orbit to orbit.
551:
225:
269:
thermodynamic—and so limit their understanding of both things.
135:
of relevant similarity (or difference) between the two objects,
172:
another complex and apparently designed object: the universe.
470:
108:
affect the strength of the argument from analogy, including
477:
239:
55:
P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
484:
Winner, Ellen; Engel, Matthew; Gardner, Howard (1980).
213:. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher
206:, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy.
65:
The argument does not assert that the two things are
283:
464:
462:
414:Salmon, Merrilee (2012), "Arguments from analogy",
92:
483:
164:and its criticisms put forward by the philosopher
1558:
486:"Misunderstanding metaphor: What's the problem?"
459:
150:of instances that form the basis of the analogy.
58:P has been observed to have further property x.
660:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
665:Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
535:
549:
417:Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
542:
528:
363:
361:
359:
357:
355:
353:
351:
349:
347:
61:Therefore, Q probably has property x also.
1243:
442:
440:
438:
436:
97:
1396:
490:Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
409:
407:
405:
403:
401:
399:
397:
395:
393:
367:
446:
344:
14:
1559:
433:
420:, Cengage Learning, pp. 132–142,
413:
523:
468:
390:
252:
73:. The argument may provide us with
154:
24:
312:Conversation theory § Analogy
25:
1593:
1541:
1540:
286:
187:
93:Analysing arguments from analogy
122:similarities to the similarity
89:must also come under scrutiny.
18:Fallacy of questionable analogy
1038:Correlation implies causation
221:rather than a false analogy).
118:(positive or negative) of the
13:
1:
337:
502:10.1016/0022-0965(80)90072-7
210:
45:
7:
279:
10:
1598:
1462:I'm entitled to my opinion
447:Gensler, Harry J. (2003).
372:. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
191:
124:inferred in the conclusion
1536:
1445:
1384:
1318:
1234:
1143:
1118:
1093:
1017:
969:
905:
880:
852:
817:
767:
721:
712:
650:
616:
572:
563:
469:Kling, Ben (2014-02-28).
1488:Motte-and-bailey fallacy
588:Affirming the consequent
1582:Philosophical arguments
1508:Two wrongs make a right
839:Denying the correlative
368:Baronett, Stan (2008).
1493:Psychologist's fallacy
1430:Argument to moderation
1420:Argument from anecdote
1370:Chronological snobbery
994:Quoting out of context
961:Overwhelming exception
844:Suppressed correlative
744:Quoting out of context
619:quantificational logic
593:Denying the antecedent
98:Strength of an analogy
1456:The Four Great Errors
1436:Argumentum ad populum
1425:Argument from silence
1129:Argumentum ad baculum
907:Faulty generalization
598:Argument from fallacy
449:Introduction to Logic
374:Pearson Prentice Hall
219:faulty generalisation
162:teleological argument
69:, only that they are
33:is a special type of
31:Argument from analogy
1474:Invincible ignorance
1280:Reductio ad Stalinum
1266:Reductio ad Hitlerum
1222:Wisdom of repugnance
989:Moving the goalposts
854:Illicit transference
779:Begging the question
700:Undistributed middle
608:Mathematical fallacy
583:Affirming a disjunct
376:. pp. 321–325.
327:Problem of induction
317:Defeasible reasoning
302:Case-based reasoning
1577:Inductive reasoning
1567:Inductive fallacies
1207:Parade of horribles
1183:In-group favoritism
1009:Syntactic ambiguity
652:Syllogistic fallacy
575:propositional logic
471:"Apples to Oranges"
1293:Poisoning the well
1110:Proof by assertion
1085:Texas sharpshooter
1019:Questionable cause
956:Slothful induction
915:Anecdotal evidence
775:Circular reasoning
670:Exclusive premises
632:Illicit conversion
37:, where perceived
35:inductive argument
1554:
1553:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1527:
1468:Ignoratio elenchi
1380:
1379:
1230:
1229:
1192:Not invented here
897:Converse accident
819:Correlative-based
796:Compound question
739:False attribution
734:False equivalence
708:
707:
455:. pp. 333–4.
427:978-1-133-71164-3
294:Philosophy portal
258:Analogy blindness
253:Analogy blindness
194:False equivalence
178:begs the question
79:logical necessity
27:Type of reasoning
16:(Redirected from
1589:
1544:
1543:
1515:Special pleading
1394:
1393:
1255:Appeal to motive
1241:
1240:
1217:Stirring symbols
1197:Island mentality
1135:Wishful thinking
1116:
1115:
832:Perfect solution
809:No true Scotsman
804:Complex question
789:Leading question
768:Question-begging
754:No true Scotsman
719:
718:
642:Quantifier shift
637:Proof by example
570:
569:
544:
537:
530:
521:
520:
514:
513:
481:
475:
474:
466:
457:
456:
451:. New York, NY:
444:
431:
430:
411:
388:
387:
365:
332:Special pleading
296:
291:
290:
289:
274:special pleading
262:informal fallacy
230:planetary system
215:John Stuart Mill
204:informal fallacy
155:Counterarguments
149:
148:
143:
142:
134:
133:
117:
116:
107:
106:
21:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1550:
1524:
1498:Rationalization
1441:
1388:
1376:
1314:
1236:Genetic fallacy
1226:
1139:
1114:
1089:
1013:
1004:Sorites paradox
984:False precision
965:
946:Double counting
901:
876:
848:
813:
800:Loaded question
784:Loaded language
763:
704:
646:
612:
559:
548:
518:
517:
482:
478:
467:
460:
445:
434:
428:
412:
391:
384:
366:
345:
340:
292:
287:
285:
282:
255:
196:
190:
157:
146:
145:
140:
139:
131:
130:
114:
113:
104:
103:
100:
95:
48:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1595:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1548:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1523:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1485:
1476:
1471:
1464:
1459:
1452:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1440:
1439:
1432:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1402:
1400:
1391:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1337:
1330:
1328:Accomplishment
1319:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1257:
1251:
1249:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1225:
1224:
1219:
1214:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1194:
1185:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1149:
1147:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1124:
1122:
1113:
1112:
1103:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1080:Slippery slope
1077:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1046:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1023:
1021:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1006:
1001:
999:Slippery slope
996:
991:
986:
981:
975:
973:
967:
966:
964:
963:
958:
953:
948:
943:
934:
933:
932:
927:
925:Cherry picking
917:
911:
909:
903:
902:
900:
899:
894:
888:
886:
878:
877:
875:
874:
869:
864:
858:
856:
850:
849:
847:
846:
841:
836:
835:
834:
823:
821:
815:
814:
812:
811:
806:
793:
792:
791:
781:
771:
769:
765:
764:
762:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
736:
731:
725:
723:
716:
710:
709:
706:
705:
703:
702:
697:
692:
687:
682:
677:
672:
667:
662:
656:
654:
648:
647:
645:
644:
639:
634:
629:
623:
621:
614:
613:
611:
610:
605:
600:
595:
590:
585:
579:
577:
567:
561:
560:
547:
546:
539:
532:
524:
516:
515:
476:
458:
432:
426:
389:
382:
342:
341:
339:
336:
335:
334:
329:
324:
319:
314:
309:
304:
298:
297:
281:
278:
260:refers to the
254:
251:
247:
246:
243:
233:
211:above respects
189:
186:
156:
153:
152:
151:
136:
127:
99:
96:
94:
91:
63:
62:
59:
56:
47:
44:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1594:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1547:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1431:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1383:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1188:Invented here
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
980:
977:
976:
974:
972:
968:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
951:False analogy
949:
947:
944:
942:
938:
935:
931:
928:
926:
923:
922:
921:
920:Sampling bias
918:
916:
913:
912:
910:
908:
904:
898:
895:
893:
890:
889:
887:
885:
884:
883:Secundum quid
879:
873:
870:
868:
865:
863:
860:
859:
857:
855:
851:
845:
842:
840:
837:
833:
830:
829:
828:
827:False dilemma
825:
824:
822:
820:
816:
810:
807:
805:
801:
797:
794:
790:
787:
786:
785:
782:
780:
776:
773:
772:
770:
766:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
726:
724:
720:
717:
715:
711:
701:
698:
696:
695:Illicit minor
693:
691:
690:Illicit major
688:
686:
683:
681:
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
658:
657:
655:
653:
649:
643:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
624:
622:
620:
615:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
580:
578:
576:
571:
568:
566:
562:
557:
553:
545:
540:
538:
533:
531:
526:
525:
522:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
480:
472:
465:
463:
454:
450:
443:
441:
439:
437:
429:
423:
419:
418:
410:
408:
406:
404:
402:
400:
398:
396:
394:
385:
383:9780131933125
379:
375:
371:
364:
362:
360:
358:
356:
354:
352:
350:
348:
343:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
322:Jurisprudence
320:
318:
315:
313:
310:
308:
305:
303:
300:
299:
295:
284:
277:
275:
270:
266:
263:
259:
250:
244:
241:
237:
234:
232:orbit a star.
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
220:
216:
212:
207:
205:
201:
200:false analogy
195:
188:False analogy
185:
183:
179:
173:
169:
167:
163:
137:
128:
125:
121:
111:
110:
109:
90:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:good evidence
72:
68:
60:
57:
54:
53:
52:
43:
40:
36:
32:
19:
1483:Naturalistic
1466:
1454:
1434:
1405:
1389:of relevance
1332:
1310:Whataboutism
1302:
1278:
1272:Godwin's law
1264:
1244:
1127:
1120:Consequences
1101:Law/Legality
1075:Single cause
1048:
1041:
950:
881:
749:Loki's Wager
729:Equivocation
722:Equivocation
496:(1): 22–32.
493:
489:
479:
448:
416:
369:
271:
267:
257:
256:
248:
208:
199:
197:
174:
170:
158:
123:
119:
101:
86:
82:
74:
70:
66:
64:
49:
39:similarities
30:
29:
1503:Red herring
1260:Association
941:Conjunction
862:Composition
759:Reification
675:Existential
627:Existential
1561:Categories
1479:Moralistic
1413:Sealioning
1407:Ad nauseam
1334:Ipse dixit
1246:Ad hominem
1070:Regression
872:Ecological
685:Four terms
603:Masked man
338:References
192:See also:
182:polytheism
166:David Hume
1520:Straw man
1398:Arguments
1387:fallacies
1361:Tradition
1351:Etymology
1323:Authority
1304:Tu quoque
1288:Bulverism
1058:Gambler's
1027:Animistic
971:Ambiguity
937:Base rate
680:Necessity
552:fallacies
453:Routledge
307:Casuistry
236:Electrons
115:relevance
67:identical
46:Structure
1546:Category
1178:Ridicule
1163:Flattery
1153:Children
1050:Post hoc
930:McNamara
892:Accident
867:Division
714:Informal
280:See also
138:and the
102:Several
1572:Analogy
1365:Novelty
1340:Poverty
1202:Loyalty
1168:Novelty
1145:Emotion
1094:Appeals
1063:Inverse
1043:Cum hoc
1032:Furtive
550:Common
510:7391745
226:Planets
147:variety
105:factors
87:content
71:similar
1450:Cliché
1385:Other
1356:Nature
1344:Wealth
979:Accent
565:Formal
508:
424:
380:
238:in an
202:is an
141:amount
132:degree
85:: the
1212:Spite
1106:Stone
370:Logic
228:in a
120:known
1298:Tone
1173:Pity
1158:Fear
556:list
506:PMID
422:ISBN
378:ISBN
240:atom
144:and
129:the
112:the
83:form
617:In
573:In
498:doi
1563::
1481:/
1363:/
1342:/
1190:/
1108:/
939:/
802:/
798:/
777:/
504:.
494:30
492:.
488:.
461:^
435:^
392:^
346:^
276:.
198:A
184:.
168:.
558:)
554:(
543:e
536:t
529:v
512:.
500::
473:.
386:.
126:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.