Multiple Analogies in Science and Philosophy

Author

Cameron Shelley | University of Michigan

Hardbound – Available

ISBN 9789027223630 (Eur) | EUR 99.00

ISBN 9781588114020 (USA) | USD 149.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027296580 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00

A multiple analogy is a structured comparison in which several sources are likened to a target. In Multiple analogies in science and philosophy, Shelley provides a thorough account of the cognitive representations and processes that participate in multiple analogy formation. Through analysis of real examples taken from the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, and Plato's Republic, Shelley argues that multiple analogies are not simply concatenated single analogies but are instead the general form of analogical inference, of which single analogies are a special case. The result is a truly general cognitive model of analogical inference.

Shelley also shows how a cognitive account of multiple analogies addresses important philosophical issues such as the confidence that one may have in an analogical explanation, and the role of analogy in science and philosophy.

This book lucidly demonstrates that important questions regarding analogical inference cannot be answered adequately by consideration of single analogies alone.

[Human Cognitive Processing, 11] 2003. xvi, 167 pp.

Publishing status: Available

https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.11

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables | p. ix

Preface | p. xiii

Acknowledgments | p. xv

1. The problem of multiple analogies | pp. 1–9

2. Multiple analogies and “old fourlegs” | pp. 11–33

3. Multiple analogies from the Mesozoic | pp. 35–63

4. Multiple analogies in archaeology | pp. 65–87

5. Multiple analogies in Plato’s Republic | pp. 89–112

6. Modelling multiple analogies | pp. 113–135

Appendix: Historical review | pp. 137–151

Notes | pp. 153–155

Index | pp. 165–167

“Shelley takes apart several well-established analogies and puts back together, into one unified model, what makes these analogies legitimate, or persuasive. By providing insight of this kind into the workings of our mind, and into what exactly we select, along the reasoning process, to make an analogy gain to a broad readership, not only among biologists, archaeologists, philosophers and scientists in general, but to anyone interested in the cognitive mechanisms of acquiring knowledge.”

Madalena Cruz-Ferreira, National University of Singapore, on Linguist List Vol. 15-701, February 2004.

Cited by

Cited by 32 other publications

Order by:

Betegh, Gábor & Pavel Gregoric

2014. MULTIPLE ANALOGY IN PS.-ARISTOTLE, DE MUNDO 6. The Classical Quarterly 64:2 ► pp. 574 ff.

Bredillet, Christophe N.

2006. From the Editor. Project Management Journal 37:2 ► pp. 3 ff.

Cat, Jordi

2022. Synthesis and Similarity in Science: Analogy in the Application of Mathematics and Application of Mathematics to Analogy. In Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities [Synthese Library, 453], ► pp. 115 ff.

Columbus, Claudette Kemper

2006. Many-Sided Analogies in Arguedas, Asturias, and Malouf. Metaphor and Symbol 21:2 ► pp. 105 ff.

Donaldson, William

2017. In Praise of the “Ologies”: A Discussion of and Framework for Using Soft Skills to Sense and Influence Emergent Behaviors in Sociotechnical Systems. Systems Engineering 20:5 ► pp. 467 ff.

Ervas, Francesca, Antonio Ledda, Amitash Ojha, Giuseppe Antonio Pierro & Bipin Indurkhya

2018. Creative Argumentation: When and Why People Commit the Metaphoric Fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology 9

Guarini, Marcello

2012. Analogical Coherence/Correspondence. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ► pp. 214 ff.

Hoffman, Robert R., Tom Eskridge & Cameron Shelley

2009. A Naturalistic Exploration of Forms and Functions of Analogizing. Metaphor and Symbol 24:3 ► pp. 125 ff.

Hofmann, Bjørn, Jan Helge Solbakk & Søren Holm

2006. Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks: The Role of Analogies in Bioethical Analysis and Argumentation Concerning New Technologies. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27:5 ► pp. 397 ff.

Hofmann, Bjørn, Jan Helge Solbakk & Søren Holm

2009. Mapping the Language of Research Biobanking: An Analogical Approach. In The Ethics of Research Biobanking, ► pp. 145 ff.

Ippoliti, Emiliano

2018. Building Theories: The Heuristic Way. In Building Theories [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 41], ► pp. 3 ff.

Ippoliti, Emiliano

2018. Heuristic Logic. A Kernel. In Building Theories [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 41], ► pp. 191 ff.

Ippoliti, Emiliano

2019. Heuristics and Inferential Microstructures: The Path to Quaternions. Foundations of Science 24:3 ► pp. 411 ff.

Ippoliti, Emiliano

2020. Scientific Discovery Reloaded. Topoi 39:4 ► pp. 847 ff.

Küpers, Wendelin

2012. Analogical Reasoning. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ► pp. 222 ff.

Les, Zbigniew & Magdalena Les

2020. Machine Perception MU—Visual Intelligence Tests. In Machine Understanding [Studies in Computational Intelligence, 842], ► pp. 181 ff.

Lin, Jing-Wen & Mei-Hung Chiu

2017. Evaluating Multiple Analogical Representations from Students’ Perceptions. In Multiple Representations in Physics Education [Models and Modeling in Science Education, 10], ► pp. 71 ff.

Lofi, Christoph

2013. Analogy Queries in Information Systems — A New Challenge. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 12:03 ► pp. 1350021 ff.

Lofi, Christoph, Athiq Ahamed, Pratima Kulkarni & Ravi Thakkar

2016. Benchmarking Semantic Capabilities of Analogy Querying Algorithms. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9642], ► pp. 463 ff.

Lofi, Christoph & Christian Nieke

2013. Modeling Analogies for Human-Centered Information Systems. In Social Informatics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8238], ► pp. 1 ff.

Logue, Danielle M, Stewart Clegg & John Gray

2016. Social organization, classificatory analogies and institutional logics: Institutional theory revisits Mary Douglas. Human Relations 69:7 ► pp. 1587 ff.

Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale

2017. Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions. Argumentation 31:2 ► pp. 221 ff.

Marfori, Marianna Antonutti, Sorin Bangu & Emiliano Ippoliti

2023. The explanatory and heuristic power of mathematics. Synthese 201:5

Park, Woosuk

2015. From Visual Abduction to Abductive Vision. In Philosophy and Cognitive Science II [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 20], ► pp. 141 ff.

Park, Woosuk

2015. Towards a Caricature Model of Science. In Philosophy and Cognitive Science II [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 20], ► pp. 77 ff.

Park, Woosuk

2017. Towards a Caricature Model of Science. In Abduction in Context [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 32], ► pp. 209 ff.

Park, Woosuk

2017. From Visual Abduction to Abductive Vision. In Abduction in Context [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 32], ► pp. 155 ff.

Roumbanis, Lambros

2017. Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups. Social Studies of Science 47:1 ► pp. 95 ff.

Schlimm, Dirk

2008. Two Ways of Analogy: Extending the Study of Analogies to Mathematical Domains. Philosophy of Science 75:2 ► pp. 178 ff.

Thrusfield, Michael

2015. Etiology. In Diseases of Coral, ► pp. 16 ff.

V. García Quintela, Marco

2018. Du Mercure gaulois à la colonie romaine de Lugdunum : un système « canonique » de transformations ?. Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 43/2:2 ► pp. 91 ff.

[no author supplied]

2021. Arguments of Statutory Interpretation and Argumentation Schemes. In Statutory Interpretation, ► pp. 205 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects