Week 12, Post 2
One of the reasoning that I was having difficulty understanding was reasoning by analogy. At first, I did not understand how a comparison of two or more sides or things will make any premises in an argument true or valid. However, after doing some research, I came across a site that went in depth explaining what reasoning by analogy is and how it is presented in an argument. I learned that reasoning by analogy is a form of inductive reasoning and it has a logical relationship used to compare two similar things to each other. Looking at the similarities will show either related or unique characteristics. With the results after analyzing, we can determine if we made valid analytical comparisons. In an argument, it is not necessary for two things to be common for the premises or conclusion to be true. It is possible to have an argument plausible because one thing differs from the other.
http://www4.samford.edu/schools/netlaw/dh2/logic/analogy.htm
Hey chubbydreams, I think that reasoning by analogy might have been somewhat confusing for people, including myself, because all of the definitions that I found for it seemed to be very complex. If this helps, I found a definition for reasoning by analogy which states that it is an argument in which we draw a conclusion on one side of the comparison, so that it will make it easier to draw a conclusion on the other side of the comparison. An example that I came up with for this is: We don't blame the police for the crime. Police and crime are like doctors and injuries.
ReplyDelete