12,080
edits
Changes
redo blockquotes
====Deduction====
====Deduction====
: ''Main article : [[Deductive reasoning]]''
: ''Main article : [[Deductive reasoning]]''
====Induction====
====Induction====
: ''Main article : [[Inductive reasoning]]''
: ''Main article : [[Inductive reasoning]]''
====Analogy====
====Analogy====
: ''Main article : [[Analogy]]''
: ''Main article : [[Analogy]]''
The classic description of [[analogy]] in the syllogistic frame comes from Aristotle, who called this form of inference by the name ''paradeigma'', that is, reasoning by way of example or through the parallel comparison of cases.
The classic description of [[analogy]] in the syllogistic frame comes from Aristotle, who called this form of inference by the name ''paradeigma'', that is, reasoning by way of example or through the parallel comparison of cases.
<blockquote>
{| align="center" cellpadding="4" width="90%" <!--QUOTE-->
We have an Example [παραδειγμα, analogy] when the major extreme is shown to be applicable to the middle term by means of a term similar to the third. It must be known both that the middle applies to the third term and that the first applies to the term similar to the third. ([[Aristotle]], "[[Prior Analytics]]", 2.24).
|
</blockquote>
<p>We have an Example [παραδειγμα, analogy] when the major extreme is shown to be applicable to the middle term by means of a term similar to the third. It must be known both that the middle applies to the third term and that the first applies to the term similar to the third. (Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", 2.24).</p>
|}
Aristotle illustrates this pattern of argument with the following sample of reasoning. The setting is a discussion, taking place in Athens, on the issue of going to war with Thebes. It is apparently accepted that a war between Thebes and Phocis is or was a bad thing, perhaps from the objectivity lent by non-involvement or perhaps as a lesson of history.
Aristotle illustrates this pattern of argument with the following sample of reasoning. The setting is a discussion, taking place in Athens, on the issue of going to war with Thebes. It is apparently accepted that a war between Thebes and Phocis is or was a bad thing, perhaps from the objectivity lent by non-involvement or perhaps as a lesson of history.
<blockquote>
{| align="center" cellpadding="4" width="90%" <!--QUOTE-->
For example, let ''A'' be 'bad', ''B'' 'to make war on neighbors', ''C'' 'Athens against Thebes', and ''D'' 'Thebes against Phocis'. Then if we require to prove that war against Thebes is bad, we must be satisfied that war against neighbors is bad. Evidence of this can be drawn from similar examples, for example, that war by Thebes against Phocis is bad. Then since war against neighbors is bad, and war against Thebes is war against neighbors, it is evident that war against Thebes is bad.([[Aristotle]], "[[Prior Analytics]]", 2.24, with minor alterations). </blockquote>
|
<p>For example, let ''A'' be 'bad', ''B'' 'to make war on neighbors', ''C'' 'Athens against Thebes', and ''D'' 'Thebes against Phocis'. Then if we require to prove that war against Thebes is bad, we must be satisfied that war against neighbors is bad. Evidence of this can be drawn from similar examples, for example, that war by Thebes against Phocis is bad. Then since war against neighbors is bad, and war against Thebes is war against neighbors, it is evident that war against Thebes is bad. (Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", 2.24, with minor alterations).</p>
|}
Aristotle's sample of argument from analogy may be analyzed in the following way:
Aristotle's sample of argument from analogy may be analyzed in the following way:
Examples of inquiry, that illustrate the full cycle of its abductive, deductive, and inductive phases, and yet are both concrete and simple enough to be suitable for a first (or zeroth) exposition, are somewhat rare in Peirce's writings, and so let us draw one from the work of fellow pragmatician [[John Dewey]], analyzing it according to the model of zeroth-order inquiry that we developed above.
Examples of inquiry, that illustrate the full cycle of its abductive, deductive, and inductive phases, and yet are both concrete and simple enough to be suitable for a first (or zeroth) exposition, are somewhat rare in Peirce's writings, and so let us draw one from the work of fellow pragmatician [[John Dewey]], analyzing it according to the model of zeroth-order inquiry that we developed above.
<blockquote>
{| align="center" cellpadding="4" width="90%" <!--QUOTE-->
A man is walking on a warm day. The sky was clear the last time he observed it; but presently he notes, while occupied primarily with other things, that the air is cooler. It occurs to him that it is probably going to rain; looking up, he sees a dark cloud between him and the sun, and he then quickens his steps. What, if anything, in such a situation can be called thought? Neither the act of walking nor the noting of the cold is a thought. Walking is one direction of activity; looking and noting are other modes of activity. The likelihood that it will rain is, however, something ''suggested''. The pedestrian ''feels'' the cold; he ''thinks of'' clouds and a coming shower. (John Dewey, ''How We Think'', pp. 6-7).
|
</blockquote>
<p>A man is walking on a warm day. The sky was clear the last time he observed it; but presently he notes, while occupied primarily with other things, that the air is cooler. It occurs to him that it is probably going to rain; looking up, he sees a dark cloud between him and the sun, and he then quickens his steps. What, if anything, in such a situation can be called thought? Neither the act of walking nor the noting of the cold is a thought. Walking is one direction of activity; looking and noting are other modes of activity. The likelihood that it will rain is, however, something ''suggested''. The pedestrian ''feels'' the cold; he ''thinks of'' clouds and a coming shower. (John Dewey, ''How We Think'', pp. 6–7).</p>
|}
===Once over quickly===
===Once over quickly===
===Looking more closely===
===Looking more closely===
====Seeding hypotheses====
====Seeding hypotheses====
</pre>
</pre>
In these terms, the 'analogy of experience' proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then deducing a Fact, its applicability to a current experience, as in the following sequence:
In these terms, the ''analogy of experience'' proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then deducing a Fact, its applicability to a current experience, as in the following sequence:
Inductive Phase:
Inductive Phase: