Analogical Argument Research Articles

Mandatory vaccination and the ‘seat belt analogy’ argument: a critical analysis in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic

The seat belt analogy argument is aimed at furthering the success of coercive vaccination efforts on the basis that the latter is similar to compulsory use of seat belts. However, this article demonstrated that this argument does not work so well in practice due to several reasons. The possibility of saving resources in health care does not usually apply in our societies, and the paternalist mentality that contributed to the implementation of seat belt–wearing obligation was predominant 30 years ago, but it does not apply at this moment. Furthermore, the risk/benefit analysis is totally different in both scenarios. In the case of seat belts, there is no way to discriminate between the users. In the case of vaccines, individuals present with unique circumstances that may differ substantially from those of another and might be foreseen a priori. This means that an analysis must be performed individually before vaccination is imposed. Finally, one must keep in mind that seat belts are often the only way in which we can protect third parties against a tragic hit by the occupant of another vehicle and are very efficient tools for this purpose. Vaccines, in contrast, do not always create sterilising immunity and are definitely not the only way by which we can avoid spreading a virus; immunity certificates, isolation, or even confinement may also serve as viable methods to achieve this purpose.

Re-imagining the Past and Mastering the Present: The Power of Analogical Arguments in American Presidents’ and Celebrities’ Discourses

Inspecting the genealogy of American statecraft discourse, it seems that historical knowledge grasped out of past experiences has been framed as a social reality that has been justified with consistency and uncompromising conviction by different political actors to contain global threats. The present article studies how analogical analysis is engaged in linking various texts of different genres, though displayed by different actors at different points in history, embed common themes and ideologies. In this regard, this study is an attempt to uncover the analogical construct underlying US presidents’ (George W.H. Bush and George W. Bush) and celebrities’ (Ben Affleck and George Clooney) discourses by investigating the extent to which their analogical reasoning contributes to the construction of common ideologies. To unpack this argument, the paper also scrutinizes the linguistic parameters of analogies by delineating the linguistic devices aimed at reinforcing the tenor of the analogy. To study the implications of the analogical arguments communicated in the language of these political actors, the research adopts a theoretical scheme combining Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis and Analogy. The findings bring out that their analogical reasoning, reinforced by linguistic toolkits, draws on the retreat strategy to legitimize US foreign policy in the Third-World.

Confirmation by analogy

This paper proposes a framework for representing in Bayesian terms the idea that analogical arguments of various degrees of strength may provide inductive support to yet untested scientific hypotheses. On this account, contextual information plays a crucial role in determining whether, and to what extent, a given similarity or dissimilarity between source and target may confirm an empirical hypothesis over a rival one. In addition to showing confirmation by analogy compatible with the adoption of a Bayesian standpoint, the proposal outlined in this paper reveals a close agreement between the fulfillment of Hesse’s (Models and analogies in science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1963) criteria for analogical arguments capable of inductive support and the attribution of confirmatory power by the lights of Bayesian confirmation theory. In this sense, the Bayesian representation not only enriches a framework, Hesse’s, of enduring relevance for understanding scientific activity, but may offer something akin to a proof of concept of it.

An efficient implementation of the NEVPT2 and CASPT2 methods avoiding higher-order density matrices.

A factorization of the matrix elements of the Dyall Hamiltonian in N-electron valence state perturbation theory allowing their evaluation with a computational effort comparable to the one needed for the construction of the third-order reduced density matrix at the most is presented. Thus, the computational bottleneck arising from explicit evaluation of the fourth-order density matrix is avoided. It is also shown that the residual terms arising in the case of an approximate complete active space configuration interaction solution and containing even the fifth-order density matrix for two excitation classes can be evaluated with little additional effort by choosing again a favorable factorization of the corresponding matrix elements. An analogous argument is also provided for avoiding the fourth-order density matrix in complete active space second-order perturbation theory. Practical calculations indicate that such an approach leads to a considerable gain in computational efficiency without any compromise in numerical accuracy or stability.

Myles Brand: Intecollegiate Athletics Within the Limits of the Academic Mission Alone

During his NCAA presidency, Myles Brand led novel academic reforms that gained deserved national recognition, but his defense of the educational and academic value of IA should be equally acknowledged since this was, for Brand, the ultimate reason why universities should support intercollegiate athletics (IA) in the first place. In this article, I describe the development of Brand’s view of the educational value of IA that preceded his signature 2006 publication ‘The Role and Value of Intercollegiate Athletics in Universities.’ I then explain Brand’s Integrated View of IA in his 2006 article and focus on his key argumentative strategy: the analogy of the educational value of IA to the educational value of performing arts like music and dance. I contend that Brand did not bring his persuasive analogical argument to its full logical conclusions since IA should contribute to a new academic major in Sport Performance and some of the very character virtues that Brand identified as developed ideally by IA are now recognized as essential academic liberal learning outcomes. I conclude by raising some criticisms of Brand’s view based on the organizational framework and policies of IA that create difficulties for the full realization of its educational value. Nonetheless, at a momentous time in U.S. higher education when university priorities and budgets are under perhaps unprecedented scrutiny, Brand’s insistence that IA must be integrated with the academic mission is more relevant than ever.

Close encounters with scientific analogies of the third kind

Arguments from non-causal analogy form a distinctive class of analogical arguments in science not recognized in authoritative classifications by, e.g., Hesse (1963) and Bartha (2009). In this paper, I illustrate this novel class of scientific analogies by means of historical examples from physics, biology and economics, at the same time emphasizing their broader significance for contemporary debates in epistemology.

Argumentasi Analogis Siswa SMP Dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Matematika Ditinjau Dari Perbedaan Jenis Kelamin

Analogical argumentation is a part of analogical reasoning which has an important role in mathematics. Analogical argumentation can help one to demonstrate that a statement is reasonable. Someone's argument can be seen when solving a problem because argumentation functions to generate and support a solution to a problem. In solving problems, gender influences the process. This qualitative research aims to describe students' analogical argumentation in solving math problems in terms of gender differences. The subjects of this study were two students from class VIII-K SMP Negeri 2 Surabaya, one male and one female with the same math ability. The research was conducted online via googleform for the analogical argumentation test and whatsapp as a platform for interviews. The research instruments were the analogical argumentation test and the latest interviews. The data obtained were then analyzed using analogical argumentation components, namely classification and conclusions. The results showed that there were complaints on the classification component, namely that the two students were able to identify the characteristics or structure of the source problem and the target problem so that the comments component was able to make a statement of the solution. The difference is in the classification component, namely students who are able to identify the problem between the problem and the target problem, not quite right in the understanding of the structure. Both female students were able to use analogical argumentation to conclude both problems logically, while male students were less logical.

A Legal Right to Clozapine Therapy for Incarcerated Individuals With Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia.

People with serious mental illnesses increasingly are being treated in jails and prisons, and during incarceration are afforded a constitutional right to medical care. This right pertains to both general medical and mental illnesses and both acute and chronic conditions. However, incarcerated patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) often are not offered clozapine, the only medication for this debilitating illness approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In this column, the authors argue that incarcerated individuals with TRS have a statutory and constitutional right to treatment with clozapine.

MODEL ARGUMEN PARAGRAF ARGUMENTATIF DALAM ARTIKEL JURNAL TERINDEKS SINTA RUMPUN PENDIDIKAN EKSAKTA: PERSPEKTIF DOUGLAS WALTON

Argument as a type of rhetoric of language is absolutely necessary in constructing, maintaining, and concluding ideas. With the existence of a solid argument construction in the body of scientific articles, the validity and reliability of facts, data, and inferences can be arguably justified. In this regard, this study aims to describe the argumentative paragraph model of the argumentative paragraphs in Sinta indexed journal articles for the exact education family. In collecting data, the observation method is used. The listening method is applied through reading and note-taking techniques. In data analysis, researchers made use of content analysis methods. Through data analysis, it was found that in the exact science education Sinta indexed journal there are three argument models, namely (1) verbal classification arguments, (2) rules arguments, and (3) witness arguments. The verbal classification argument model found includes (1) fact / perception arguments and (2) consequence arguments. The rule argument model found consists of (1) public opinion arguments, (2) personal opinion arguments, and (4) causal relationship arguments. Meanwhile, the findings of the witness argument model are (1) expert opinion argument, (2) analogy argument, and (3) fact-hypothesis argument. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that Douglas Walton’s argument models have not been fully accommodated in Sinta indexed journal articles for the exact education family. The authors of the articles are advised to continue to improve their publications by utilizing Walton's argument models in the hope that the resulting articles can be justified argumentatively-scientifically.

Context Graphs for Ampliative Analogical Legal Reasoning and Argumentation

Legal Reasoning involves both analytic/deductive and ampliative/analogical components. The latter are tightly connected to defeasibility in legal argumentation. Yet present rule-based models of defeasible legal inference are not ampliative: what is defeasibly derivable is solely determined by the contents of their knowledge base. We argue that a proper modelling of the analogical aspects of legal reasoning allows one to capture both much of its ampliative and much of its defeasible capabilities. Context graphs enable the representation of ampliative analogies as metalogical operations. We sketch algorithms acting on Context Graphs to implement analogical reasoning.

Quantificational Attitudes

The literature contains a popular argument in favor of the position that conditional attitudes (especially intentions and desires) are not simple attitudes with conditional contents but, rather, have a more complex structure. In this paper I show that an analogous argument applies to what we might call quantificational attitudes—like an intention to follow every bit of good advice I receive or a desire to get rabies shots for each bite I incur from an infected bat. The conditions under which these attitudes are satisfied and thwarted are not captured by claiming that they are simple attitudes with quantificational contents. So, the argument supports a novel position—that quantificational attitudes have a more complex structure. After sketching the form of this extra structure, I show how similar considerations count in favor of the existence of genuinely quantificational speech acts.

Image and Argument in Plato’s Republic by Marina Berzins McCoy

Reviewed by: Image and Argument in Plato’s Republic by Marina Berzins McCoy Nickolas Pappas McCOY, Marina Berzins. Image and Argument in Plato’s Republic. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2020. viii + 355 pp. Cloth, $95.00 —This major study of the Republic combines traditional and original approaches to illuminate how the dialogue teaches, how it argues, and generally how it philosophizes. The book covers the entirety of Plato’s Republic (with emphasis on the earlier sections), finding throughout how Plato’s characters reason by means of images and how Plato’s readers might do the same. An introduction and nine chapters develop the book’s themes and apply its techniques. Chapter 1, really a methodological introduction, revisits the old question: Given Plato’s critique of imagery and literary devices, how should a reader respond to his image-laden writing? But McCoy seeks to go beyond the standard responses to this question, which confine Platonic “imagery” to passages formally framed as stories or announced to be figurative. Myths and anecdotes alone will not do justice to the way that image-thinking pervades this philosophizing. For McCoy, image includes the paradigmatic case, the illustrative example, and the analogy. These are implicated in the Republic’s thinking, too; so image-thinking encompasses much more of the Republic than treatments of the old question have assumed. Images in poetry do stifle philosophizing. The difference in Platonic imagery, according to McCoy, consists in its inspiring the reader to pursue images actively and tangle with them in pursuit of philosophical understanding, rather than to absorb them passively. In book 1, the significant images are “paradigms” of justice that guide the thinking of Socrates’ interlocutors. Socrates brings the interlocutors to reexamine these imaginatively effective sets of assumptions, then works with Glaucon and Adeimantus to go beyond such paradigmatic images. Another species of image guides the positive view that Socrates develops in response to Glaucon and Adeimantus. The analogy between city and soul, underappreciated as image and as example of how to think with images, enmeshes the philosophical reader in meditation on the soul, how it can be known, and how far a city might resemble a soul. McCoy joins those interpreters who deny the literal tripartition of the soul in order to highlight the way in which this analogical argument too amounts to active image-thinking. [End Page 397] These investigations take up chapters 2 through 4. In the two following chapters, McCoy looks at the Republic’s proposed cities, while the two chapters after those treat the middle books’ images of the good. The final chapter covers both the best city’s decline to become the worst, and the concluding myth about the afterlife. Chapters 5 and 6, about the Republic’s cities, reinforce those proposed cities’ status as images by comparing them with cultural images of Plato’s time. The “city of sows” in book 2 shares features with the primitivistic fantasy that Athenian women enacted annually in the Thesmophoria. It is a fascinating suggestion and well informed about Athenian religious practice; but one might point out other enactments of the primitive that Plato could be drawing upon, like the gymnasium practices (oil rubbed on bodies, leaf-garlands like camouflage) that simulated precivilized hunting. Plato had more than one representation of archaic life available to him. In chapter 6 the apparent innovations of Republic 5—above all gender equality—are said to share with comparable proposals in Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen the comedic function of criticizing institutions while leaving themselves open to criticism. This is a tricky middle ground between the interpreters who treat these innovations as Plato’s own and those who dismiss them as “ironic.” McCoy’s adept examination of the intertextuality in book 5 grounds her reading. She rightly refers to the many comments on laughter and ridicule in these pages, although she could have said more about those Socratic rejections of risibility that weaken her interpretation. McCoy passes from politics to metaphysics: the forms in general, and specially the form of the good, as represented in books 6 and 7 with figures of the sun, the divided line, and the cave. Chapters 7 and 8 take on passages more typically...

Analogía e interpretación teleológica. Un caso aragonés: ¿palas eólicas como ramas?

El trabajo presenta un caso civil (sobre palas eólicas como ramas) donde se muestra la necesidad de aclarar la ratio legis de una regulación legislativa para determinar la legitimidad de su aplicación analógica. Esto significa que el argumento analógico requiere una interpretación teleológica de los textos normativos pertinentes, para determinar la ratio de una regulación y luego proceder a una posible integración analógica del derecho. En la medida en que la interpretación teleológica no sólo sirve para determinar el contenido de un texto a la luz de su razón subyacente, sino también para determinar la razón misma, la interpretación teleológica es necesaria para la analogía. Al mismo tiempo, el trabajo muestra cómo el uso de la ratio es controvertido y que los argumentos jurídicos de segundo grado (como el argumento de las consecuencias económicas) pueden resolver los casos más problemáticos.

Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings

Abstract This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.

How Entrepreneurs make sense of Lean Startup Approaches: Business Models as cognitive lenses to generate fast and frugal Heuristics

The role of the business model (BM) as heuristics to support entrepreneurial and strategic problem solving at a cognitive level has been hinted at by extant literature, but left largely unexplored as of yet. This study is positioned in the emerging research on the cognitive individual microfoundations of Entrepreneurship and Strategy, and contributes to the discussion of how business models are used as heuristics, in the novel and relevant setting of Digital Entrepreneurship. We conducted a multiple case study on three digital startups that applied the emerging Lean Startup Approaches (LSAs) and embody technological development in their value proposition. We found that digital entrepreneurs applying LSAs as a systematic process to validate their business ideas rely on business models as cognitive lenses to make sense of LSAs and translate abstract guidelines into fast and frugal heuristics, in order to ‘make do’ with cognitive resource scarcity. These BM-generated heuristics in turn help entrepreneurs in the activities of: (i) making sense of entrepreneurial opportunities; (ii) formulating falsifiable hypotheses concerning their startups’ viability; (iii) filtering, selecting and organizing fuzzy and incomplete external and internal information; (iv) designing multidimensional customer experiments and tests revolving around the notion of value, through Minimum Viable Business Models (MVBMs); (v) prioritizing these experiments and tests to validate their early BM through analogical arguments; and (vi) processing the learning they obtain from experiments, and concretizing it in the form of BM pivots. We also provide empirically-driven insight on an integrative set of cognitive processes – namely (1) cognitive imprinting, (2) common language transfer; (3) attention intensity and (4) scientific and experimental cognition – that mold and blend together the BM-generated heuristics and explain how they are learnt, transferred, enacted, and how they persistently enable a cognitive transition to the application of a scientific method to Entrepreneurship based on more sophisticated experiments and metrics.

The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory

This paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the conceptions of metaphor taken as starting point in the reviewed literature. An overview is provided of all types of metaphors distinguished and their possible argumentative functions. The study reveals that not all possible argumentative functions of metaphor have been taken into account, such as the role of conventional direct metaphors in standpoint and starting point. Novel direct metaphor as part of an analogy argument has received most attention, while indirect metaphor can constitute argumentative moves as well, such as the introduction of a standpoint, starting point or connection premise. The overview also shows that certain combinations of variables seem to be impossible of unlikely to occur. These results have a bearing on the analysis of metaphors in argumentative discourse and show the omission in current studies of metaphor. Being aware of these dimensions of metaphor ánd of its potential in argumentation would enrich argumentation studies and metaphor studies alike.

Analogical Framing: How Policy Comparisons Alter Political Support for Health Care Reform

Analogies have captivated philosophers for millennia, yet their effects on modern public opinion preferences remain largely unexplored. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence as to whether analogies aid in political persuasion has not stopped politicians from using these rhetorical devices in public debates. To examine such strategic attempts to garner political support, we conducted survey experiments in the United States that featured the analogical arguments being used by Democrats and Republicans as well as some of the policy rationales that accompanied their appeals. The results revealed that analogies—especially those that also provided the underlying policy logic—increased support for individual health coverage mandates, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and even single payer national health proposals. However, we demonstrated that rebutting flawed analogies was also possible. Thus, within the health care arena, framing proposals with analogies can alter policy preferences significantly, providing a way to deliver policy rationales persuasively.

Editorial

This thirteenth issue of the journal (Volume 7, Issue 1, July 2020) begins with Roberto Frega’s (CNRS) article “Against Analogy: Why Analogical Arguments in Support of Workplace Democracy Must Necessarily Fail”. Frega invites democratic and political theorists committed to the democratization of the workplace to ground themselves in specifics. Instead of working through metaphor and analogy which risks treating workplaces or firms as more or less the same, Frega argues we should first take issue with the question of which workplace or firm and thereafter work through the problem of how it can democratize. Analogies, Frega convincingly shows, simply do not have this productive capacity.

Against Analogy

This article asks whether the analogy between state and firm is a promising strategy for promoting workplace democracy and provides a negative answer, explaining why analogical arguments are not a good strategy for justifying workplace democracy. The article contends that the state-firm analogy is misguided for at least three reasons: (1) it is structurally inconclusive, (2) it is based on a category mistake, and (3) it leads us away from the central question we should ask, which is: What would concretely imply, and what is required, in order to democratize the workplace? I begin by offering an interpretation of the state-firm analogy which shows that use of the analogical argument in Dahl’s justification of workplace democracy engenders excessive and unnecessary theoretical costs which bear negatively on his conclusion. I then proceed to examine more recent contributions to the debate and show that supporters and critics of the state-firm analogy alike do not advance our understanding of the analogical argument. In the last part of the article I provide a general theoretical explanation of why arguments based on the state-firm analogy are not good candidates for defending workplace democracy.

Turning intercollegiate athletics into a performance major like music

ABSTRACT Myles Brand offered a provocative defense of intercollegiate athletics (IA) by arguing that it is substantively similar to traditional performing arts, such as art or music, and so should be accepted by faculty as a legitimate part of a university's educational mission. Randolph Feezell characterized Brand's analogical argument as 'sophistic' and defended the reasonableness of what Brand termed the 'Standard View' of athletics whereby it is peripheral to a liberal arts education. I contend that Brand did not bring his persuasive analogical argument to its logical conclusion: IA should contribute to a new, first-of-its kind academic major in Competitive Sport. Feezell’s criticisms of Brand’s analogical argument were unpersuasive, and his conception of a liberal arts education was outdated. As a result, I defend the legitimacy of a Competitive Sport major comparable to a Music Performance major and give a detailed description of its rigorous, liberal arts-based curriculum that integrates faculty and coaching instruction through shared learning objectives and outcomes. I conclude by identifying, and responding to, several practical issues if such a major were to be implemented in a US university.