Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2004

Publication Title

Informal Logic

Volume

24

Issue

2

First Page

153

Last Page

168

Abstract

Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative, nondeductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended herein and the Trudy Govier's account are discussed as well.

Comments

This article was originally published in Informal Logic, 2004.

Download

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS