Argumentation by Analogy and Weighing of Reasons

The thesis of my presentation will be that John Woods and Brent Hudak’s theory on argumentation by analogy, although correct in its meta-argumentative approach, gives rise to problems when we consider the possibility of weighing reasons. Moreover, if we apply their theory, it is difficult to understand a certain variety of argumentation by analogy in which the subjects of comparison are not arguments, but argumentative structures (in particular, weighings of arguments). These problems are an outcome of understanding the relation between the premises and the conclusion of arguments compared in an argumentation by analogy in terms of inferences. As an alternative, I will explore an interpretation in terms of reasons. The reason-based interpretation could solves the first problem and allows the theory to be extended to account for the other variety of argumentation by analogy while maintaining the advantages of the meta-argumentative approach.

Everybody is welcome to join!

For online participation, please use the following link (password: 006421).

This event is organized by P. Abreu and E. Rast. The purpose of this seminar series is to give researchers a platform to discuss ongoing work and problems in the philosophy of language, epistemology, argumentation, metaethics, and related areas. For administrative inquiries, please contact Pedro Abreu <pedroabreu@fcsh.unl.pt> or Erich Rast <erich@snafu.de>.