Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T10:17:00.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valid Reasoning by Analogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Julian S. Weitzenfeld
Julian S. Weitzenfeld*
Affiliation:
Klein Associates Yellow Springs, Ohio and Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reasoning that compares two objects or situations to draw conclusions about previously unknown properties of one of them has traditionally been taken to be ampliative and probabilistic. I propose that it is apodeictic reasoning from a premise about isomorphic structures that is often uncertain, but which we may have good reasons to believe. I characterize the structures and their isomorphism, describe patterns of reasoning appropriate to them, and discuss some complications not immediately obvious.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 137 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSC), USAF, under Contract AFOSR-F49620-79-C-0179 to Klein Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio.

I would like to thank Glen Helman for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Bornstein, M., Ferdinsen, K. and Gross, C. G. (1981), “Perception of Symmetry in Infancy”, Developmental Psychology 17: 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, R. M. (1931), General Logic. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. (1975), Mathematical Carnival. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L. and Holyoak, K. J. (1983), “Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer”, Cognitive Psychology 15: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1970), The Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. and Simon, H. A. (1975), “Understanding Tasks Stated in Natural Language”, in D. R. Reddy (ed.), Speech Recognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. B. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1963), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1929), A Treatise on Probability. London: MacMillan & Co.Google Scholar
Klein, G. A. and Weitzenfeld, J. (1982) “The use of analogues in comparability analysis”, Applied Ergonomics 13: 99–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyttkens, H. (1952), The Analogy Between God and the World. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1973–74), A System of Logic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Moore, J. and Newell, A. (1973), “How can MERLIN Understand?” in L. W. Gregg (ed.), Knowledge and Cognition. Potomac, Md.: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. and Vincenti, W. G. (1978), The Britannia Bridge: The Generation and Diffusion of Technological Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass. & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weitzenfeld, J. (1980), “Similarity and Purpose”, work in progress.Google Scholar