A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy

The key idea of meta-argumentative theories of argument by analogy is that arguments by analogy compare two arguments in order to show whether or not the premises of one of them are adequately connected to its conclusion, and therefore the argument has the logical properties that depend on that conn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Marraud González, Humberto
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Institución:Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Repositorio:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/725780
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10486/725780
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10228-x
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Argument by analogy
Conditions of rebuttal
Modifiers
Parity of reasons
Weighing
Filosofía
id ES_7d2c5bca583b4f6153d5dfefc9377f9e
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/725780
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogyMarraud González, HumbertoArgument by analogyConditions of rebuttalModifiersParity of reasonsWeighingFilosofíaThe key idea of meta-argumentative theories of argument by analogy is that arguments by analogy compare two arguments in order to show whether or not the premises of one of them are adequately connected to its conclusion, and therefore the argument has the logical properties that depend on that connection. The premises-conclusion relationship can be under stood in terms of inferences or in terms of reasons. Consequently I distinguish between an inference-based version and a reasons-based version of the meta-argumentative theory. I argue that an inference-based theory of argument by analogy cannot easily account for neither the usual way of attacking an argument by analogy nor the predominance of counter analogy over direct analogy. A reasons-based meta-argumentative theory does not face the same difficulties because it recognizes the contextual nature of logical evaluation, distinguishing between the parts of an argument (premises and conclusion) and the contextual factors relevant to its logical evaluation (conditions and modifiers). Contextualizing logi cal properties enables us to distinguish between cases in which two arguments are not analogous and cases in which their contexts of evaluation are not analogous. Context-dependence also explains why analogies are used more often to show that an argument is invalid than to show that an argument is validThis work has benefitted from the support granted by Research Project “Argumentative practices and the pragmatics of reasons 2”, PID2022-136423NB-I00, funded by MCIN/ AEI / https ://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”SpringerDepartamento de Lingüística General, Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Lenguas Modernas, Teoría de la Literatura y Literatura Comparada, Estudios de Asia OrientalFacultad de Filosofía y LetrasAgencia Estatal de Investigación20252025-07-17research articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10486/725780https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10228-xreponame:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAMinstname:Universidad Autónoma de MadridInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Attribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/7257802026-06-23T12:46:27Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
title A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
spellingShingle A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
Marraud González, Humberto
Argument by analogy
Conditions of rebuttal
Modifiers
Parity of reasons
Weighing
Filosofía
title_short A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
title_full A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
title_fullStr A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
title_full_unstemmed A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
title_sort A review of meta-argumentative theories of analogy
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Marraud González, Humberto
author Marraud González, Humberto
author_facet Marraud González, Humberto
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Departamento de Lingüística General, Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Lenguas Modernas, Teoría de la Literatura y Literatura Comparada, Estudios de Asia Oriental
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Argument by analogy
Conditions of rebuttal
Modifiers
Parity of reasons
Weighing
Filosofía
topic Argument by analogy
Conditions of rebuttal
Modifiers
Parity of reasons
Weighing
Filosofía
description The key idea of meta-argumentative theories of argument by analogy is that arguments by analogy compare two arguments in order to show whether or not the premises of one of them are adequately connected to its conclusion, and therefore the argument has the logical properties that depend on that connection. The premises-conclusion relationship can be under stood in terms of inferences or in terms of reasons. Consequently I distinguish between an inference-based version and a reasons-based version of the meta-argumentative theory. I argue that an inference-based theory of argument by analogy cannot easily account for neither the usual way of attacking an argument by analogy nor the predominance of counter analogy over direct analogy. A reasons-based meta-argumentative theory does not face the same difficulties because it recognizes the contextual nature of logical evaluation, distinguishing between the parts of an argument (premises and conclusion) and the contextual factors relevant to its logical evaluation (conditions and modifiers). Contextualizing logi cal properties enables us to distinguish between cases in which two arguments are not analogous and cases in which their contexts of evaluation are not analogous. Context-dependence also explains why analogies are used more often to show that an argument is invalid than to show that an argument is valid
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025
2025-07-17
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv research article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
VoR
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10486/725780
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10228-x
url https://hdl.handle.net/10486/725780
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10228-x
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
instname:Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
instname_str Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
reponame_str Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
collection Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869411644290891776
score 15,812429

Similares en LA Referencia