Abstracts
Abstract
In making analogical arguments about actions, is more similarity between the source and target cases always better? No: all things considered, more similarity is not always better, even if the similarities are all relevant. The reason is that the context of the argument, including emotional considerations, modulates the selection of the source case to service the goals of the argument. If the goals of the argument include persuasion and even modifying someone’s emotional state, increasing the overall similarity between the source and target may be counterproductive.
Keywords:
- action,
- analogy,
- context,
- emotion,
- empathy,
- narrative,
- persuasion,
- practical reasoning,
- rhetoric,
- similarity
Résumé
En avançant des arguments analogiques sur les actions, une plus grande similitude entre les cas source et cible est-elle toujours meilleure? Non : tout bien considéré, plus de similitude n'est pas toujours mieux, même si les similitudes sont toutes pertinentes. La raison en est que le contexte de l'argument, y compris les considérations émotionnelles, module la sélection du cas source pour atteindre les objectifs de l'argument. Si les objectifs de l'argument incluent la persuasion et même la modification de l'état émotionnel de quelqu'un, augmenter la similitude globale entre la source et la cible peut être contre-productif.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Alter, Robert. 2019. The Hebrew bible: A translation with com-mentary, three volumes. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company.
- Alvargonzález, David. 2020. Proposal of a classification of anal-ogies. Informal Logic 40(1): 109-137.
- Barnes, Jonathan (ed.). 1984. The complete works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation, 2 volumes. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Ashley, Kevin. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: MIT Press.
- Bartha. Paul. 2010. By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford Universi-ty Press.
- Braman, Eileen and Thomas E. Nelson. 1994. Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 940-956.
- Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M. 2017. HYPO’s legacy: Introduction to the virtual special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25: 205-250.
- Bex, Floris J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Blair, J. Anthony, Christopher Tindale and Katharina Stevens (eds.). 2022. Special issue: Michael Gilbert’s multi-modal ar-gumentation. Informal Logic 42(3).
- Blass, Joseph and Kenneth Forbus. 2015. Moral decision-making by analogy: Generalizations versus exemplars. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 501-507. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
- Damiano, Canale and Giovanni Tuzet. 2014. Analogy and inter-pretation in legal argumentation. Chapter 13. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. Henrique Jales Ribei-ro, 227-242. Amsterdam: Springer.
- Dehghani, Morteza, Emmett Tomai, Kenneth Forbus and Matthe Klenk. 2008. An integrated reasoning approach to moral deci-sion-making. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Con-ference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), eds. Dieter Fox and Carla P. Gomes, 1280-1286. Chicago, IL: AAAI Press.
- Dunning, David, Ann Leuenberger and David A. Sherman. 1995. A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 69(1): 58-68.
- Eemeren, Frans van, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels. 2009. Fal-lacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Volume 16 of Argumentation Library. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
- Falkenhainer, Brian., Kenneth Forbus and Dedre Gentner, D. 1989. The structure mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41(1): 1-63.
- Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical frame-work for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2): 155-170.
- Gentner, Dedre and Markman, A. B. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52: 45-56.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philoso-phy of the Social Sciences 24(2): 159-177.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 2004. Emotion, argumentation, and informal logic. Informal Logic 24(3): 245-264.
- Gilbert, M. A. 2014. Arguing with people. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
- Giovannetti, Dana. 1984. The principle of analogy in Sino-Soviet criminal laws. Dalhousie Law Journal 8(2): 382-401.
- Guarini, Marcello, Amy Burchart, Paul Smith, and Andrei Mol-dovan. 2009. Resources for research on analogy: a multidisci-plinary guide. Informal Logic 29(2): 84-197.
- Hafner, Carole and Donald H. Berman. 2002. The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: Teleological, temporal and pro-cedural. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(1-3): 19-64.
- Holyoak, Keith J. and Thagard, Paul (1995). Mental leaps: Anal-ogy in creative thought. MIT Press.
- Juthe, André. 2005. Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19(1): 1-27.
- Juthe, André. 2014. A systematic review of classifications of arguments from analogy, chapter 7. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. Ribeiro, Henrique Jales, 109-127. Amsterdam: Springer.
- Juthe, André. 2020. A defense of analogy inference as sui generis. Logic and Logical Philosophy 29: 259-309.
- Krabbe, Erik C. W. 1992. So what? Profiles for relevance criti-cism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation 6(2): 271-283.
- Kraus, Manfred. 2015. Arguments by analogy (and what we can learn about them from Aristotle). In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, Argumentation Library 28, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen. Springer.
- Kunda, Ziva. 1990. The case for motivated inference. Psychologi-cal Bulletin 108: 480-498.
- Kunda, Ziva. 1999. Social cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
- Langenbucher, Katja. 1998. Argument by analogy in European law. Cambridge Law Journal 57(3): 481-521.
- Lloyd, G. E. R. 1966. Polarity and analogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumention. Cambridge University Press.
- Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton and Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defea-sibility conditions. Argumentation 31(2): 221-243.
- Ridge, Michael and Sean McKeever. 2023. Moral particularism and moral generalism. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philos-ophy (summer 2023 edition), eds. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman. forthcoming URL: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/moral-particularism-generalism/>.
- Mill, John Stuart. 1843/1930. A system of logic. London: Long-mans-Green.
- Naucke, Wolfgang. 1986. Interpretation and analogy in the crimi-nal law. Brigham Young University Law Review: 535-552.
- Olmos, Paula. 2014. Classical fables as argument: Narration and analogy, chapter 11. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. Ribeiro, Henrique Jales, 189-208. Amsterdam: Springer.Pinto, Robert C. 2011. Emotions and reasons. OSSA Conference Archive, Paper 37. URL: <http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/37>.
- Pinto, Robert C. and Laura E. Pinto. 2016. The emotional life of reason: Exploring conceptions of objectivity. OSSA Confer-ence Archive, Paper 85. URL: <https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/85>.
- Ribeiro, Henrique Jales (ed.). 2014. Systematic approaches to argument by analogy. Springer.
- Rissland, Edwina L. and Keven D. Ashley. 2002. A note on di-mensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 65-77.
- Sopory, Pradeep and James Price Dillard. 2006. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 28(3): 382-419.
- Stevens, Katharina. 2018. Case-to-case arguments. Argumenta-tion 32: 421-455.
- Thagard, Paul. 2006. Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. MIT Press.
- Thagard, Paul and Cameron Shelley. 2006. Emotional analogies and analogical inference, chapter 3. In Hot thought: Mecha-nisms and applications of emotional cognition, ed. Paul Thagard, 27-50. MIT Press.
- Tindale, Christopher. 2021. The anthropology of argument: Cul-tural foundations of rhetoric and reason. Routledge.
- Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Ar-gumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
- Walton, Douglas. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(3): 217-246.
- Walton, Douglas. 2012. Story similarity in arguments from anal-ogy. Informal Logic 32(2): 190-221.
- Walton, Douglas. 2013. Argument from analogy in legal rhetoric. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21(3): 279-302.
- Walton, Douglas and Curtis Hyra. 2018. Analogical arguments in persuasive and deliberative contexts. Informal Logic 38(2): 213–261.
- Webb, Taylor, Keith J. Holyoak, and Hongjing Lu. 2023. Emer-gent analogical reasoning in large language models. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01659-w