It is appropriate here to point out that comfort ought not to be taken from the possibility of directly verifying an analogical argument's conclusion.
Do nonhuman animals use analogies and analogical reasoning in ways similar to humans?
These observations point to the existence of two distinct conceptions of plausibility, probabilistic and modal, either of which may reflect the intended conclusion of an analogical argument.
What justification can be given for the claim that analogical arguments deliver either plausible conclusions or some other desideratum?
Latent transition analyses identified five phases with qualitative individual differences in children's analogy solving: duplication, idiosyncratic, beginner analogical, intermediate analogical and advanced analogical reasoning.
Although Aristotle employs the term analogy (analogia) and talks about analogical predication, he never talks about analogical reasoning or analogical arguments per se.
Analogical arguments based on formal analogy have also been extremely influential in physics (Steiner 1989, 1998).
This role is most obvious where an analogical argument is explicitly offered in support of some conclusion.
At the other extreme, an analogical argument may provide very weak support for its conclusion, establishing no more than minimal plausibility.
These conditions, singly or taken together, imply that an analogical argument can fail to generate any support for its conclusion, even when there is a non-empty positive analogy.
