Additionally Recognized As: False Analogy, Fallacious Analogical Argument
Description:
This fallacy happens when an analogical argument’s premises don’t adequately help its conclusion. This can be a fallacy of standards fairly than construction as a result of a Weak Analogy and a robust argument by analogy can have the identical logical kind. As such, the fallacy happens when an analogical argument fails to satisfy the situations of a robust analogical argument. Analogical arguments are inductive arguments; so even a robust one with all true premises can nonetheless have a false conclusion. A associated fallacy is Good Analogy. On this fallacy an individual refuses to simply accept any analogy that’s not excellent.
An analogical argument is an argument through which one concludes that two issues are alike in a sure respect as a result of they’re alike in different respects. An analogical argument will usually have three premises and a conclusion. The primary two premises set up the analogy by displaying that the issues (X and Y) in query are comparable in sure respects (properties P, Q, R, and many others.). The third premise establishes that X has a further high quality, Z. The conclusion asserts that Y has property or function Z as effectively. Though individuals usually current analogical arguments in a casual method, they’ve the next logical kind:
Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R.
Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R.
Premise 3: X has property Z.
Conclusion: Y has property Z.
A extra concise two premise model can also be frequent:
Premise 1: X and Y have properties P,Q,R.
Premise 2: X has property Z.
Conclusion: Y has property Z.
X and Y are variables that stand for no matter is being in contrast, comparable to chimpanzees and people or apples and oranges. P, Q, R, and are additionally variables, however they stand for properties or options that X and Y are identified to own, comparable to having a coronary heart. Z can also be a variable, and it stands for the property or function that X is thought to own. Using P, Q, and R is only for the sake of the illustration-the issues being in contrast may need many extra properties in frequent.
An instance of a non-fallacious argument by analogy offered in strict kind is as follows:
Premise 1: Rats are mammals and possess a nervous system that features a developed mind.
Premise 2: People are mammals possess a nervous system that features a developed mind.
Premise 3: When uncovered to the neurotoxin being examined, 90% of the rats died.
Conclusion: If uncovered to the neurotoxin, 90% of people will die.
As famous above, False Analogy shouldn’t be a structural fallacy however a fallacy of standards. To find out if an analogical argument is powerful or weak sufficient to be fallacious, you will want to use the requirements of evaluation to the argument. There will be cheap debate concerning the power of an analogical argument, and you shouldn’t mechanically assume that one you disagree with have to be fallacious.
The power of an analogical argument is determined by three components. To the diploma that an analogical argument meets these requirements it’s a sturdy argument. To the diploma that it doesn’t meet them, it’s weak. Whereas these requirements are goal, there is no such thing as a precise line at which one can say for positive that an argument would develop into fallacious. Luckily, no such precise line is required (see the Line Drawing Fallacy underneath the False Dilemma). Listed below are the three standards for assessing analogical arguments.
First, the extra properties X and Y have in frequent, the stronger the argument. For instance, within the instance given above rats and people have many properties in frequent. This commonplace relies on the commonsense notion that the extra two issues are alike in different methods, the extra seemingly it’s that they are going to be alike in another method. It ought to be famous that even when the 2 issues are very a lot alike in lots of respects, there’s nonetheless the likelihood that they aren’t alike concerning Z.
Second, the extra related the shared properties are to property Z, the stronger the argument. A selected property, for instance P, is related to property Z if the presence or absence of P impacts the chance that Z will likely be current. Utilizing the instance, above, the shared properties are related. In spite of everything, since neurotoxins work on the nervous system, the presence of a nervous system makes it extra seemingly that one thing will likely be killed by such brokers. It ought to be saved in thoughts that it’s attainable for X and Y to share related properties whereas Y doesn’t even have property Z.
Third, it have to be decided whether or not X and Y have related dissimilarities in addition to similarities. The extra dissimilarities and the extra related they’re, the weaker the argument. Within the instance above, people and rats do have dissimilarities, however most of them are most likely not notably related to the consequences of neurotoxins. Nevertheless, it might be value contemplating that the dimensions distinction may be related and thus a distinction value contemplating.
Whereas it may be tempting to label any argument by analogy you assume is weak as fallacious, this temptation ought to be resisted. Whereas there’s not an actual line that may be drawn, you need to think about whether or not the argument is affordable regardless of your disagreement or if it fails badly sufficient to warrant being thought-about fallacious reasoning.
For example, the watchmaker argument from design is commonly offered as a Weak Analogy. Oversimplified, the reasoning is that as a result of the world is analogous to a watch, it follows that as a result of the watch was designed by an clever being, the identical applies to the world. Whereas this analogy has been ably criticized by David Hume and Charles Darwin, the controversy seems to be a considerable one and never settled by asserting that the argument is a False Analogy. That stated, it will also be argued that it’s a False Analogy.
This fallacy will be dedicated in good religion by somebody who believes that their analogy has meet the requirements. It will also be dedicated in unhealthy religion when the individual utilizing it believes that the analogy is weak however presents it as in the event that they consider it’s sturdy. For instance, an individual who agrees with vaccine selection however is anti-abortion would possibly examine vaccine selection with abortion selection in a foul religion analogy geared toward persuading a pro-choice (abortion) individual to simply accept the vaccine selection view. Or a pro-choice (abortion) individual would possibly use this tactic towards a vaccine selection individual. This tactic can be utilized along with False Settlement and False Allegiance.
As with all fallacy, the conclusion of a Weak Analogy could possibly be true. The error is one among reasoning and never one among truth.
Protection: The principle protection towards committing or falling for this fallacy is to cautious apply the three requirements to the argument by analogy in query. Due care ought to be taken earlier than accusing somebody of committing this fallacy. When you would possibly think about their analogy weak, saying that’s fallacious implies that they’ve made an error of reasoning that’s critical sufficient to be known as a fallacy.
If somebody is committing this fallacy in unhealthy religion, it may be helpful to find out this. Whereas the fallacy shouldn’t be dedicated due to the unhealthy religion, exposing it may be helpful in lowering the psychological drive of the fallacy. For instance, if somebody who’s pro-choice (abortion) makes a foul religion comparability between abortion selection and vaccine option to persuade a vaccine selection individual to develop into pro-choice (abortion), revealing the unhealthy religion might scale back the psychological attraction of the fallacy.
Instance #1
“The circulate of electrical energy by wires is just like the flowing of water by pipes. Water flows quicker downhill, so electrical energy does, too. This, by the way in which, is why electrical wires are run on poles. That method the electrical energy can circulate rapidly into your own home.”
Instance #2
Glenn: “Biden goes to do the identical issues to America that Hitler did to Germany!”
Invoice: “What?”
Glenn: “Biden was democratically elected. So was Hitler. Do I must bust out some chalk and draw it out for you?”
Invoice: “Sure.”
Glenn: “I’m out of chalk.”
Invoice: “Too unhealthy.”
Instance #3
Steve: “These darn Republicans!”
Lena: “How have they harm your liberal sensibilities this time?”
Steve: “They’re saying that the well being care plan is an enormous authorities takeover. They’re making an enormous lie, similar to Goebbels did. It is rather like blood libel.”
Lena: “That appears to be a bit a lot.”
Steve: “Under no circumstances. You already know, that’s how the Holocaust bought began. With an enormous lie. The Republicans are going to trigger a Holocaust as a result of they’re similar to the Nazis!”
Lena: “That’s fairly a comparability.”
Steve: “I do know!”
Instance #4
Ted: “Whereas I believe ghosts are cool, I don’t consider they actually exist.”
Sam: “Why not?”
Ted: “Properly, I’ve by no means seen one.”
Sam: “Do you consider in atoms?”
Ted: “Yeah.”
Sam: “Properly, you could have by no means seen one among them. So you need to consider in ghosts when you consider in atoms.”
Instance #5
Ed: “So, you might be for banning weapons?”
Fiona: “Sure.”
Ed: “Even for the police?”
Fiona: “Particularly for the police.”
Ed: “Why ban them?”
Fiona: “Weapons make it really easy to kill. Banning weapons would scale back deaths.”
Ed: “So we must also ban automobiles?”
Fiona: “What?”
Ed: “Extra individuals are killed by individuals with automobiles than by individuals with weapons. So, when you assume we must always ban weapons, then you should assume we must always ban automobiles.”
Instance #5
Ed: “So, you might be for banning abortion?”
Fiona: “Sure.”
Ed: “Why ban them?”
Fiona: “Abortion is killing. If we banned abortion, there could be fewer deaths.”
Ed: “So we must also ban automobiles, weapons, conflict, and capital punishment?”
Fiona: “What?”
Ed: “If we banned them, there could be much less loss of life. So, when you towards abortion you have to be towards weapons, automotive, conflict, and capital punishment.”
