Suggestions(2)
Exact(43)
An analogical argument is justified if knowledge of the positive analogy increases the (logical) probability of the conclusion.
First, the goodness of an analogical argument is based on the goodness of the associated analogy mapping.
In the former "all things are demonstrated" while in the latter less rigorous forms of argumentation are utilized (e.g., supporting a proposition by means of an analogical argument).
What counts as essential should vary with the analogical argument.
But systematicity does not magically produce or explain the plausibility of an analogical argument.
It can lead to the rejection of a good analogical argument.
Similar(17)
Analogical arguments based on formal analogy have also been extremely influential in physics (Steiner 1989, 1998).
Genetic arguments assert that the best account of the genesis of mind lies in panpsychism; the analogical arguments seek to find analogies between clearly enminded entities and the rest of nature which are strong enough to warrant the extension of mental attributes throughout nature.
Second and more importantly, we need to look not just at the construction of analogy mappings but at the ways in which individual analogical arguments are subsequently debated in fields such as mathematics, physics, philosophy and the law.
And since analogical arguments are a type of induction (see the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning), the conclusion even if established would be established only to some, perhaps insignificant, degree of probability.
Can such a simple analysis of analogical arguments succeed?
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com