"An analogy will typically have two premises and a conclusion. The first premise establishes the analogy by showing that the things (X and Y) in question are similar in certain respects (properties P, Q, R, etc.). The second premise establishes that X has an additional quality, Z. The conclusion asserts that Y has property or feature Z as well. The form of the argument looks like this:"
"X and Y are variables that stand for whatever is being compared, such as chimpanzees and humans or apples and oranges. P, Q, R, and are also variables, but they stand for properties or features that X and Y are known to possess, such as having a heart. Z is also a variable, and it stands for the property or feature that X is known to possess."
An analogy normally has two premises and a conclusion: one premise establishes that two things share certain properties, and a second premise ascribes an additional property to one of them, from which a conclusion attributes that property to the other. The strength of an analogy depends on whether the shared properties are relevant and significant to the inferred property. Superficial or dissimilar features weaken the inference and can render the conclusion unjustified. The proposed analogy equates mask mandates with restrictive voting laws and infers similar political responses, but the analogy’s force requires scrutiny of crucial similarities and disanalogies.
Read at A Philosopher's Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]