The article critiques the argument against social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, which compares it to other causes of death like the flu and accidents. These arguments rely on an analogy that suggests if similar restrictions aren't applied to other deadly scenarios, they shouldn't be applied to pandemics. However, this reasoning is flawed as it oversimplifies the complexities surrounding public health responses, neglecting the unique threat posed by infectious diseases compared to other causes of mortality. Such arguments represent inductive reasoning, which requires careful evaluation of the analogies drawn to assess their validity.
The argument from analogy used against social distancing often compares the pandemic to other causes of death, questioning why similar measures were not implemented for them.
Argument by analogy suggests that if two situations share certain properties, the conclusions drawn about one can be applied to the other, making it an inductive reasoning method.
Collection
[
|
...
]