Something I found interesting and useful in chapter 12 was Judging Analogies. I learned in reading this section that "just saying that one side of the analogy is like the other is too vague to use as a premise." Epstein states that unless the analogy is very clearly stated, we have to survey the similarities and guess the important ones in order to find a general principle that applies to both sides. He says we must also survey the differences to see if there isn't some reason that the general principle might not apply to one side. This section also talks about the fallacy of composition which is to argue that what is true of the individual is therefore true of the group, or that what is true of the group is therefore true of the individual. Epstein gives seven ways in evaluating an analogy which are:
1. Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?
2. What is the comparison?
3. What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison)
4. What are the similarities?
5. Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides?
6. Does the general principle really apply to both sides? Do the differences matter?
7. Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?
No comments:
Post a Comment