This chapter discusses attempts by Aristotle, Hesse, Mill and others to deal with two problems: (1) finding criteria for evaluating analogical arguments, and (2) providing some form of philosophical justification. As regards the first problem, we can identify a valuable “commonsense” model in Hesse's work, though one that is capable of refinement. As regards the second problem, it is argued that most analyses to date have unsuccessfully cast the analogical argument as an incomplete form of deductive argument, as some type of sampling argument, or as induction by enumeration. Agassi's skeptical rejection of all analogical reasoning is criticized because it too misrepresents the logical structure of the argument form.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.