week 6 - Analogy & Analogical Argument

Week 6

Analogy & Analogical Argument

This week I learnt about analogy and analogical argument. First we cover about the definition of analogy. Analogy means a comparison between two things. For example, I compare the heart works as a pump. But in critical thinking the comparison must be valid. Here I can know that the comparison is invalid if the comparison items are not similar, misleading or it is described inaccurately.

Next we move to analogical argument. It means the similarities between two things are analogy but the presence of some additional feature in one thing leads to a conclusion that another thing shares the same additional feature. Before I accept the analogical argument I must examine whether the premises are true and the relevance of similarities.

Moreover, I also learnt about causal link. It is wrongly reasoned to assume that two things are found together, or occur at the same time, so there must be a causal link. There are three types of mistakes in evaluating cause and effect which are overlooking in common cause, reversing cause and effect and looking too hard for a cause. Overlooking a common cause means the two things are caused by other reason and not by one another.  Reversing cause and effect means I not need clearly identify which thing really comes first and we simply can assume which thing comes first but in reality it is maybe the other way round. Lastly, looking too hard for a cause means a mistaken thing can lead to all superstitious beliefs.

Besides that, correlation means two things are frequently found together. But here I had pressured that correlation is not a cause. Next, we learnt about fallacies. Fallacies are false and bad argument. Post Hoc fallacy means B happens because of A, so A is a cause of B. Slippery slope is A cause B, B cause C and if I don’t want to happen C better don’t do A. Shortly it happens in sequence. These are the examples of causal fallacies.

Hasty generalisation means predict overall because of some events. Sweeping generalisation is one thing does not guarantee another thing. False dilemma means arguer poses a fake or choice. False analogy is the arguer compares two things which are actually not comparable.

The lessons I gained from this week is very useful to me because I score fully for the question; I know how to evaluate source materials. I score full for question; if I am not sure about something, I will research to find out more. So, I basically like to Google out if I don’t know anything. For the question, I am good at identifying patterns, I score 3. Here I plan to practice more to score fully for this question. Lastly, my score is improving from 1 to 3 for I can present my own arguments clearly. So I will put more effort to present my arguments clearly.