I found this chapter to be more difficult for me than the others to replicate because it required a deeper reasoning. In this chapter, Epstein introduces reasoning by analogies the comparison of two parts in an argument. An example the book used is: rats are like humans. Thus, if a rat gets the flu then humans will most likely get it. In the example, we are comparing rats with humans saying that they are very similar that health issues will be the same. Logically the idea makes sense and can be passed down as an excellent argument. In reality, we know that humans and rats do not get the same diseases. Even to animals that are almost genetically identical to us is wrong.
I believe reasoning by analogies is excellent for arguments were the audience has a very basic knowledge of the subject. By associating the subject with a comparison that everyone knows the audience can relate and see how they are similar.
You are correct, this chapter is more difficult to replicate. I think part of the reason is that reasoning by analogy requires readers and listener to actually think about what is being compared in each claim. In your example : rats are like humans. The analogy can be considered very logical but when considering whether if a rat gets the flu humans will most likely get it is not necessarily logical. Although it is proven that rats and humans are very similar and they do get many of the same diseases and viruses because we do have the same organ systems. SO basically you are correct in saying that reasoning by analogy would do better for people that have only basic knowledge of the subject at hand.
ReplyDelete