23 Arguments VIII: Analyzing Analogies
Okay, on to analogies. Let’s again start with a more precise definition.
- An analogical argument or argument by analogy is an argument in which known similarities between one thing and another (or multiple others) is/are used to infer that some additional similarity is likely to hold between them.
(Side note: An analog is something that is like something else; an analogy a drawing of a comparison. Given that, why do you think we talk about “analog” technologies, particularly in recording?)
The general form of an analogical argument:
- A and B are known to be similar in respects p, q, r, …
- A is also known to be x.
Therefore, B will likely be x as well.
Elements of analysis of an analogical argument:
Individuals Compared: A, B
Known Similarities (of A and B): p, q, r, …
Note: there is no set number of similarities that are required. The list “p, q, r,…” is just a placeholder. There could be only one similarity, or there could be many more than three.
Additional Fact Known about A that is predicted to hold of B as well: x
Note: the conclusion of the argument will claim that x holds or is likely to hold of B.
Examples of Analogical Arguments with Elements Analyzed
1. 1. During the Great Depression there was high unemployment, low wages, and low national productivity, all of which ended due to the increase in government spending for World War II.
2. Today there is high unemployment, low wages, and low national productivity.
Conclusion: high unemployment, low wages, and low national productivity will end if there is an increase in government spending comparable to that during WWII.
(Note: This is an argument some economists will make in times of recession, as for example back in 2008.)
Individuals Compared: (A) the economy of the Great Depression, (B) the economy today
Known Similarities of A and B: (p) high unemployment, (q) low wages, (r) low national productivity
Additional Fact (x) Known about A that is predicted to hold of B as well: it ended/will end because of an increase in government spending
2. 1. A watch is something has many parts which are interrelated in complex yet ordered (i.e., non-random) ways, and which gets that order and complexity from an intelligent being who designed it.
2. The universe has many parts which are interrelated in complex yet ordered ways.
Conclusion: the universe must have gotten its complexity from an intelligent being who designed it.
(Note: this is a famous argument for the existence of God known as the Argument from Design.)
Individuals Compared: (A) a watch, (B) the universe
Known Similarities of A and B: (p) many parts, (q) parts are related in complex ways, (r) relations among parts is ordered
Additional Fact (x) Known about A that is predicted to hold of B as well: its order and complexity comes from an intelligent designer
3. 1. Skeletor, a drug designed to speed the healing of broken bones, proved very effective in clinical trials on men who were between 30 and 50 years of age who had broken legs.
2. I am a man between 30 and 50 years of age, and I have a broken leg.
Conclusion: Skeletor will be very effective in helping heal my broken leg.
(Note: Skeletor is an entirely fictitious drug; the fact that I thought of using the He-man villain as a pharmaceutical name shows why I think I should really be in marketing.)
Individuals Compared: (A) men in clinical trial, (B) me
Known Similarities of A and B: (p) male, (q) between 30 and 50, (r) have broken legs
Additional Fact (x) Known about A that is predicted to hold of B as well: very effective in healing broken legs
4. 1. Rush Limbaugh smokes cigars, has a lot of money, and is politically conservative.
2. Robert DeNiro smokes cigars and has a lot of money.
Conclusion: Therefore, he is probably politically conservative too.
Individuals Compared: (A) Rush Limbaugh, (B) Robert DeNiro
Known Similarities of A and B: (p) smoke cigars, (q) have a lot of money
Additional Fact (x) Known about A that is predicted to hold of B as well: is politically conservative
What we now want to know is, when is an analogical argument strong?
Criteria for Strength of an Analogical Argument
- … there must be enough similarities between the things being compared;
- … the similarities must be relevant to the drawing of the conclusion;
- … there must not be relevant dissimilarities that are overlooked or suppressed.
Based on these, we get the definition of another fallacy: an analogical argument that is weak (for whatever reason) is said to be guilty of the fallacy of faulty analogy.
With that in mind, let’s ask, are the above examples above strong? As with generalizations, you may not easily be able to answer one way or another. What you should be able to do, however, is specify what you would need to know in order to answer that question.
Above Examples of Analogical Arguments Analyzed for Strength
- There are multiple similarities which appear to be relevant between the historical example and the current one referred to; only economists and/or economic historians will be in a position to judge whether there are enough similarities and whether there are any neglected but relevant dissimilarities. So those of us who lack the relevant expertise can only say: maybe this is a strong argument, but without more information, we can’t be sure. It’s not obviously weak, however.
- There are multiple similarities which appear to be relevant. There are, however, some obvious dissimilarities that are not mentioned, for instance, that we have direct knowledge of how watches are made by their designers, that the universe is vastly larger than a watch, and that watches have obvious purposes (for telling time). Such dissimilarities lead many philosophers to conclude that this is a weak argument (though it has its supporters as well). (If you find this argument interesting and want to think more about it, take another philosophy class!)
- There are multiple similarities which appear to be relevant. While it’s possible that there could be relevant dissimilarities, there aren’t any obvious ones. This is, in fact, the sort of reasoning we implicitly use any time we choose to take a medication (at least for its intended purpose). We rely on being sufficiently similar to those it has already been proven effective in treating – that’s why we think it will work on us too. So this is a strong argument.
- Two similarities between the men are noted, but only one of them (wealth) is in any clear way related to political leanings. So, it is pretty clearly weak: not enough relevant similarities, and no consideration or relevant dissimilarities. It is thus a faulty analogy.
Important Note: it can be difficult to analyze analogies (more so than generalizations), because much more depends on your background knowledge of the topic. It’s this that will help you know whether what’s mentioned is relevant, or whether there are important things being left out. When you are doing your exercises, keep that in mind, and do your best to think imaginatively about the situations described. You should always be able to specify the known and predicted similarities, because those will be stated. But, more often than not, you may have to say that you don’t know enough to assess whether there are enough relevant similarities or unstated dissimilarities.
Distinguishing Generalizations from Analogies
Sometimes it can be hard to tell if you’re dealing with an analogy or a generalization. Both involve two things (target and sample groups; A and B being compared) and an argument that considers them in relation to one another. So how do you know which is which?
The two main things to look for: once you’ve got the two things/groups and you’re trying to decide what kind of argument it is, ask,
(1) is one included in the other as a smaller subset of it?
(2) Is the thing the conclusion is about a group or a single individual?
In most cases, once you answer these questions you’ll know what you’re dealing with. If the answer to 1 is ‘yes,’ and the conclusion is about the larger group, then it’s a generalization. A generalization never makes a conclusion about a single individual, and it does involve starting with a small group and moving to a claim about a larger group that includes the small one.
If the answer to 2 is ‘single individual,’ it’s an analogy. Analogies sometimes draw conclusions about groups (but not on the basis of what’s true of a subset of the group), but they often draw conclusions about individual things or people.
If the answer to 2 is ‘group,’ then you need to ask question 1 again and determine whether two distinct groups are being compared, or whether a conclusion about a large group is being drawn on the basis of a smaller one.
Practice is how you learn, so your exercises are where you will really get a handle on all of this.
