scholarly journals Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy

Author(s):  
Douglas N. Walton
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton

In this paper a hybrid model of argument from analogy is presented that combines argumentation schemes and story schemes. One premise of the argumentation scheme for argument from analogy in the model claims that one case is similar to another. Story schemes are abstract representations of stories (narratives, explanations) based on common knowledge about how sequences of actions and events we are familiar with can normally be expected to unfold. Story schemes are used (a) to model similarity between two cases, and (2) as the basis of evidence to support the similarity premise of an argument from analogy. Four examples of argument from analogy are used to test the theory.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-262
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton ◽  
Curtis Hyra

This paper uses argumentation tools such as argument diagrams and argumentation schemes to analyze four examples of argument from analogy, and argues that to proceed from there to evaluating these arguments, features of the context of dialogue need to be taken into account. The evidence drawn from these examples is taken to support a pragmatic approach to studying argument from analogy, meaning that identifying the logical form of the argument by building an argument diagram of the premises and conclusion is not by itself sufficient for argument evaluation. To get further, it is argued, the argument evaluator needs to take into account how this particular argument was used in context to support a conversational goal.Cet article utilise des outils d'argumentation tels que des diagrammes d'argument et des schèmes d'argumentation pour analyser trois exemples d'argument par analogie, et soutient que pour évaluer ces arguments de manière adéquate, il est nécessaire de tenir compte du contexte d'utilisation de l'argument. Ces exemples suggèrent que l’étude des arguments par analogie à partir de seulement l’identification de leur forme logique (par exemple en construisant un diagramme des prémisses et de leur conclusion) n'est pas adéquate. Pour aller plus loin, on avance que l'analyste d'argument doit prendre en compte comment un argument particulier a été utilisé dans un contexte pour soutenir un but conversationnel.


2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton ◽  
Fabrizio Macagno

We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of this sort, including argument from abductive classification, argument from causal classification, argument from analogy-based classification and arguments from classification based on generalizations.


Author(s):  
Douglas Walton ◽  
Christopher Reed ◽  
Fabrizio Macagno

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141-1166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Prakken ◽  
Adam Wyner ◽  
Trevor Bench-Capon ◽  
Katie Atkinson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document