Though the cartoonist Scott Adams has condemned analogies for being something used only when the comparison isn't obvious; they are useful tools and allow humans to acknowledge the patterns and repetition embedded in history. An argument by analysis is formed when there is believed to be a same "essential characteristic" in two situations and that reason indicates that that specific characteristic can also be found in the analogous situation. There are both literal and figurative analogies; literal being the more credible one since the cause and effect of the claim is not muddled with poetic or fanciful language. Justices on the supreme court often use analogy to decide cases; the tradition of precedent relies on the forming of conclusions based on prior conclusions made about similar cases. The usefulness of analogy is that it doesn't get the backlash an argument from authority may be susceptible to and therefore does not have to rely on the audience's perception of the person/people in authority. If the analogous argument is laid out with the analogy being a kind which any reader or listener can make sense of, then the claim may not need a person of authority to hold it as true too. However, an analogy is weak in that the thing analogous cannot directly or unambiguously present the outcomes of the situation in question since it is not a replica of the exact relationship. It is thus reasonable to expect a few to doubt the grounds for the claim if presented with mere analogies. Yet, analogies remain powerful in both everyday rhetoric and in the case of law. Caution is advised though since an analogy can encapsulate the metaphorical truth so well that the facts become muddled and absolute. Facts are still important; it is just that analogies help to conceptualize the effects of a claim.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I somewhat disagree with your point about argument by analogy not receiving backlash, and that argument by authority is more susceptible. I want to first point out that argument by analogy is still extremely vulnerable to criticism because many people will form analogies between situations without examining the totality of the past outcome. Although an analogous situation from the past is a concrete situation to build off of and compare, conclusions in the past may be unacceptable or unethical in current situations. When using an analogous situation, it must have a sound argument that has a definite positive outcome with good ethics and predictability. By using the nature of argument, one can form a sound argument by analogy with the grounds, warrant, claim, qualifier, backing, and rebuttal in order to best form an analogy.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to touch on your comparison of argument by analogy being stronger than authority because I see them to be different, but not better than each other. An argument by authority emphasizes that a claim is justified because it is held by a credible person (other than yourself) that can be cited with power, knowledge, and authority. Although I agree with your point that audiences have to rely on their understanding and perception of this authority figure, these figures should only be used if they are widely credible and suiting for the argument. Both forms of argument have their susceptible flaws, however I think they still have different strengths in varying situations.