Question

...
Ed F

Question About Examples of Extended Analogy

The book gives this Logical Form for Extended Analogy:

"A is like B in some way.  C is like B in a different way.  Therefore, A is like C."

I don't see how the two examples given in the book follow that pattern.  What are A,B & C in each example?

Can someone give a different example that follows the pattern and identify A, B & C?

 

asked on Sunday, Jan 09, 2022 05:24:50 PM by Ed F

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
account no longer exists
0

Here is a summary of Example 2 on the website:

P1. Thinking the atom was the smallest particle was a mistake of science.

P2. Evolution is also a mistake of science.

C. Therefore, science thinking the atom was the smallest particle is like science thinking evolution is true.

In terms of A, B, and C:

A is like B = (A), thinking the atom was the smallest is (B), a mistake in science.

C  is like B = (C), Evolution is science, and is (B), a mistake in science.

A is like C = Therefore, (C), evolution, must be like (A), thinking the atom is the smallest because both are mistakes in science, i.e. sharing (B) in common.

answered on Sunday, Jan 09, 2022 06:13:15 PM by account no longer exists

account no longer exists Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
Ed F writes:

Thanks.   I think the problem with this example is that only someone who didn't believe in evolution would believe P2 and it's hard to imagine in what way someone who thought that would think that A is different than C.

Can anyone give an example of an Extended Analogy where the Premises are true and the Conclusion false?

I can give a trivial example:

John's red Ferrari and Jimmy's red bicycle are both similar to the town Fire Engine in that all are red vehicles.

Therefore John's red Ferrari and Jimmy's red bicycle are similar vehicles.

 

posted on Sunday, Jan 09, 2022 06:49:31 PM
...
3
Arlo writes:

[To Ed F]

But aren't the Ferrari and bicycle actually similar?  They are both red!  

For an extended analogy aren't we looking for situations in which thing-1 and thing-2 are similar with respect to some characteristic-A ... and thing-2 and thing-3 are similar with respect to some other, different characteristic-B.  Then, the analogy gets distributed from one characteristic to the other – when it really shouldn't.  Just because "1" and "2" are similar with respect to A and if "2" and "3" are similar with respect to B, doesn't mean that "1" and "3" have to be similar with respect to either characteristic.

For example, dogs and goldfish are similar in that they are both pets.  Dogs and home alarm systems are similar in that they can both discourage robbers from invading your home.  Therefore, you should get a goldfish to discourage robbers from invading your home.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 10, 2022 12:52:37 PM
...
1
Ed F writes:

You’re right.  Your example does fit the definition (which mine didn’t).

The Logical Form the book gives (with a little tweaking) is:

A is like B in some way X

C is like B in some way Y

Therefore, A and C are like each other in X and Y.

I don’t think either Example given in the book follows the pattern.*

*In Prof M’s breakdown of the book’s 2nd example, there are only two things being compared, not 3.   It says that A  & C share the (same) quality of being mistakes in science and therefore A & C are alike.  There aren’t three things and there aren’t two qualities.

posted on Monday, Jan 10, 2022 04:56:43 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

[To Ed F]

How so only 2?

A = atom, B= mistake, C=evolution

It follows Dr. Bo's example 2.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 10, 2022 05:48:39 PM
...
0
Ed F writes:

The format for this Fallacy is:

A is like B in some way X

C is like B in some way Y

Therefore, A and C are like each other in X and Y.

So if we call a mistake in science "B", what are the two qualities X and Y being shared?

posted on Monday, Jan 10, 2022 06:01:51 PM
...
1
account no longer exists writes:

[To Ed F]

Ah. I see your point. I need to go back to the drawing board on this. I think you are correct about the examples Dr. Bo uses. They don't fit the definition.

Dr. Bo...?

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jan 11, 2022 03:12:44 PM