Analogies

the reasoning is that if two or more things are alike in some respects, they are alike in some other respects

• A and B are both f, g, and h
• A is also J
• Therefore, probably B is j

• the thing, event, or practice at issue in the argument
• the person, things or event, represented by B, about which a conclusion is drawn

• that to which the analogy is drawn; that person, things, or event represented by A to which B is claimed to be analogous
• j possessed by A

the feature, j, present with A and concluded as belonging as well to B

similarites that form the basis of the analogy

• strong if the common feature are relevant to the inferred feature and there are no relevant dissimilarities
• weakend by showing that a relevant difference exists btw the cases and if the relevant negative feature is present it makes the inferred feature less probable

• if the features two things have in common are NOT relevant to the inferred feature, the number of common features does not matter
• two things may have few,observable similarities yet still we alike in possessing the inferred feature
• greater the points of similarity btw the two things, the more likely a relevant similiarity will appear in the set of common features
• a number of similiarties are less important than the kinds

• a common feature is relevant to the presence of the inferred feature if it increases the likelihood of the presence of the inferred feature
• feature the subject and analogue have in common may be relevant to the inference in different ways: causally, statistically, morally, and aesthetically

• there is some feature possessed by one and not the other
• difference does not create a disanalogy-differences are to be expected
• when a differnence bears negatively on the possession on the inferred feature, a disanalogy exists