­A defense of analogy inference as sui generis

André Juthe

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2019.025


Accounts of analogical inference are usually categorized into four broad groups: abductive, deductive, inductive and sui generis. The purpose of this paper is to defend a sui generis model of analogical inference. It focuses on the sui generis account, as developed by Juthe [2005, 2009, 2015, 2016] and Botting’s [2017] criticism of it. This paper uses the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation as the methodological framework for analyzing and reconstructing argumentation. The paper has two main points. First, that Juthe’s arguments against a deductive interpretation of prima facie analogy argumentation remain unaffected by Botting’s criticism, which means that many of the reasons against deductive reformulation of analogy argumentation still stand. The additional argument, which Botting himself brings up, that a deductive interpretation cannot account for the cumulative effect of analogies, just provides further reason to reject deductivism. The second main point of this paper is that an inductive interpretation of analogical inference also fails. There are constitutional differences between inductive and analogical inference that cannot be bridged. The result is a firm defense of the sui generis view of analogical inference.


analogical inference; sui generis; deductivism; interpretation; argumentation theory; argument schemes; pragma-dialectical; relevant similarity; universal claim; one-to-one correspondence; determining relation

Full Text:



Botting, D., 2012a, “The paradox of analogy”, Informal Logic 32, 1: 98–115. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v32i1.3143

Botting, D., 2012b, “Wellman’s typology of arguments”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 28, 41: 23–44.

Botting, D., 2014, “Why modal pluralism does not require normative pluralism”, Argumentation and Advocacy 50, 3: 168–182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2014.11821817

Botting, D., 2016, “The logical evaluation of arguments”, Argumentation 30, 2: 167–180. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9383-1

Botting, D., 2017, “The cumulative force of analogies”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 17, 3: 1–37. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.011

Burbidge, J.W., 1990, Within Reason: A Guide to Non-Deductive Reasoning, Broadview Press, Peterborough, Ontario.

Cohen, L.J., 1986, The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Davies, T.R., 1988, “Determination, uniformity, and relevance: Normative criteria for generalization andreasoning by analogy”, pages 227–250 in D.H. Helman (ed.), Analogical Reasoning Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence.

Cognitive Science, and Philosophy, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Dufour, M., 2017, “Argument or explanation: Who is to decide?”, Informal Logic 37, 1: 23–41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i1.4523

Eemeren, F.H. van., 2010, Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aic.2

Eemeren, F.H.van., B. Garssen and B. Meuffels, 2009, Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules, Argumentation Library, Vol. 16, Springer Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9

Eemeren, F.H.van, and R. Grootendorst, 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

Eemeren, F.H.van, and R. Grootendorst, 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, New Jersey. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315538662

Eemeren, F.H.van, and R. Grootendorst, 2003, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389

Eemeren, F.H.van, R. Grootendorst and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah (New Jersey) and London.

Eemeren, F.H. van, P. Houtlosser and H.A.F. Snoeck, 2007, Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study, Dordrecht: Springer.

Freeman, J.B., 2011, Argument structure: Representation and Theory, Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5

Geach, P.T., 1956, “Good and evil”, Analysis 17, 2: 33–42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/17.2.33

Govier, T., 1989, “Analogies and missing premises”, Informal Logic 11, 3: 141–152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v11i3.2628

Govier, T., 2002, “Should a priori analogies be regarded as deductive arguments?” Informal Logic 22, 2: 155–157. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v22i2.2580

Govier, T., 2010, A Practical Study of Argument, 7th ed, Cengage Learning, Wadsworth. Guarini, M., 2004, “A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments”, Informal Logic 24, 2: 153–168. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v24i2.2141

Guarini, M., 2010, “Particularism, analogy, and moral cognition”, Minds and Machines 20, 3: 385–422. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9200-4

Hofstadter, D., 1995, “A review of Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought”, AI Magazine 16, 3: 75–80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v16i3.1154

Holyoak, K.J., and P. Thagard, 1989, “Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction”, Cognitive Science 13: 295–355. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1303_1

Holyoak, K.J., and P. Thagard, 1994, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creativethought, Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

Juthe, A., 2005, “Argument by analogy”, Argumentation 19, 1: 1–27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9

Juthe, A., 2009, “Refutation by parallel argument”, Argumentation 23, 2: 133–169. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9109-8

Juthe, A., 2015, “Analogical argument schemes and complex argumentation”, Informal Logic 35, 3: 378–445. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i3.4211

Juthe, A., 2016, “Argumentation by analogy: A systematic analytical study of an argument scheme”, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Kasachkoff, T., 1988, “Explaining and justifying”, Informal Logic 10, 1: 21–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v10i1.2635

Lewis, C.S., 1952, Mere Christianity. MacMillan, New York.

Lief, M.S., H.M.Caldwell and B.Bycel, 1998, Ladies And Gentlemen Of The Jury: Greatest Closing Arguments In Modern Law, Scribner, New York.

Mayes, G.R., “Argument explanation complementarity and the structure of informal reasoning”, 2010, Informal Logic 30, 1: 92–111. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i1.419

Plumer, G., 1999, “Necessary assumptions”, Informal Logic 19, 1: 41–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v19i1.2314

Pinto, R.C., 2001, Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0783-1

Plumer, G., 2017, “Presumptions, assumptions, and presuppositions of ordinary arguments” Argumentation 31, 3: 469–484. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9419-1

Pollock, J.L., 1995, How to Build a Person, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3588.001.0001

Rind, M., and L. Tillinghast, 2008, “What is an attributive adjective?” Philosophy 83, 1: 77-88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819108000314

Shecaira, F.P., 2013, “Analogical arguments in ethics and law: A defence of deductivism analysis”, Informal Logic 33, 3: 406–437. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i3.3778

Stevens, K., 2018, “Case-to-case arguments”, Argumentation 32, 3: 431–455. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9448-z

Taylor, R., 1956, “The “justification” of memories and the analogy of vision”, The Philosophical Review 65, 2: 192–205. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2182831

Tomić, T., 2013, “False dilemma: A systematic exposition”, Argumentation 27, 4: 347–368. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0

Vorobej, M., 2006, A Theory of Argument, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498879

Waller, B.N., 2001, “Classifying and analyzing analogies”, Informal Logic 21, 3: 199–218. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i3.2246

Walton, D.N., 1996, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/358424

Walton, D.N., 2005, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807039

Walton, D.N., C. Reed and F. Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034

Print ISSN: 1425-3305
Online ISSN: 2300-9802

Partnerzy platformy czasopism