In general, judgments of plausibility are made after a claim has been formulated, but prior to rigorous testing or proof. The next sub-section provides further discussion. Note that this characterization is incomplete in a number of ways. The manner in which we list similarities and differences, the nature of the correspondences between domains:
Figure 1 Analogical generalization Thus far, explicit analogical reasoning has not been discussed. What we have seen is that analogical reasoning implicitly plays a part in the replication logic of Yin, for example, when the researcher looks for cases that are expected to give the same research results.
After all, in this instance the researcher is looking for analogous cases. Yin does not explicitly mention analogies nor does he discuss measures or criteria for good analogical reasoning.
Generalization based on analogy does not need an explicit theory. However, analogical argumentation can play a role when statements are made concerning a new case that has not yet been researched, based on a case that has, by means of a preliminarily developed theory.
Theory-carried generalization implies that the researcher knows in which sorts of cases the theory will probably hold. These cases that have not been studied must possess a certain analogy with those that have been researched.
Theory-carried generalization and thus also the analytical generalization of Yin would benefit if the analogical argumentation connected with it was made explicit and was tested. Empirical testing of analogical reasoning can contribute to more stringent formulation of the conditions under which the theory holds and thus of the scope of the theory.
The other forms of inductive generalization could be argumentatively supported, in my opinion, by analogical reasoning. In other words, good analogical reasoning can help to avoid the fallacy of hasty generalization, especially regarding case-to-case transfer.
Analogical reasoning can be seen as a special sort of inductive argumentation, as Copi does, or as a separate form of argumentation which must be distinguished from inductive argumentation, as does, for example, Walton Walton restricts inductive argumentation to situations in which the researcher, based on a particular sample, generalizes to a population or scope of which that sample is a part.
Analogical reasoning, however, is more concerned with the apparent similarities between a case that has been researched and another particular case that has not.
Whether or not analogical reasoning is seen as a sort of inductive argumentation, analogical reasoning nevertheless has its own character. For instance, it is not aimed at arriving at general or universal propositions, let alone natural laws. In the present discussion, it is important to know how analogical reasoning can become an acceptable argumentation or even a powerful argumentation.
Analogical reasoning is often mistrusted. In other words, analogical reasoning is often regarded as fallacious. But that is not always correct, hence the question is what is it that makes analogical reasoning argumentatively acceptable.
How can the fallacy of false analogy be avoided? This section is concerned with answering this question. Analogical generalization is based on analogical reasoning. Such reasoning is only plausible when there are solid arguments that, when a particular researched case has characteristics which are relevant for the research conclusions, another case that has not been researched also has these relevant characteristics.
The knowledge about the relevant similarities can be based on present experience, on existing literature, or on the judgment of a group of experiential experts based on argumentative dialogues.
There may possibly be an accepted or well-founded theory as a support, or a separate empirical study of the relevant similarities between two or more cases. As a component of external validity of the results and conclusions in an empirical study, analogical reasoning is concerned with the plausibility and acceptability with which these results and conclusions could hold for phenomena, cases or situations that have not been studied and that display similarities with phenomena, cases or situations that have been studied.
The plausibility of analogical reasoning cannot be derived from deductive logic or inductive statistics. Analogical reasoning is not deductively valid reasoning nor does it lead to quantitative statements of probabilities. As discussed in the previous section, analogical reasoning differs from non-statistical inductive reasoning that plays a role in generalization supported by theory and generalization based on covering the variation.
Hence, the question is what makes analogical reasoning plausible? When do two situations compare with each other sufficiently to make it plausible that research results in one situation will also hold in another? On this score, it does not matter whether the analogy is demonstrated by the researcher, by a group of stakeholders, or by the reader of the research report.
I shall discuss six criteria or canons or rules that will make analogical reasoning as I have discussed more acceptable. These six criteria are a compilation of what can be found in the literature by authors such as CopiFreelyGovierKennedyRescherand Walton 5 see also Smaling, Six quality criteria for analogical reasoning The analogy between case or phenomenon, or situation P and Q will be considered.
Analogical argumentation could then be as follows: This analogical reasoning is plausible when the following rules are applied. Presupposed, in connection with the following formulations, is that all other things being equal.
In other words, the ceteris paribus condition applies. Hence, the first analogy makes the conclusion that O will also be successful with Q more plausible than the second analogy all other things being equal.Such arguments are called "analogical arguments" or "arguments by analogy".
Here are some examples: Analogical arguments rely on analogies, and the first point to note about analogies is that any two objects are bound to be similar in some ways and not others.
Truth: First of all we need to check that the two objects being compared are. By contrast reasoning that depends on analogies has often been viewed with suspicion.
Professor Lloyd first explores the origins of those Western ideals, criticises some of their excesses and redresses the balance in favour of looser, admittedly non-demonstrative analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy.
An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists.
In general (but not always), such arguments belong in the category of inductive reasoning, since their conclusions do not follow with . Conjecturing via analogical reasoning constructs ordinary students into like gifted student standards of evaluation  "conjecturing and demonstrating the logical validity of conjectures are the reasoning, because analogies can capture a significant parallel in different situations.
Outside of regular use, the analogy is a key. The Military and Defense Critical Thinking Inventory (MDCTI) is a two-part scientifically developed measure of cognitive ability that evaluates the core reasoning skills and personal attributes associated with successful leadership decision making.
Good analogical reasoning is an indispensable support to forms of communicative generalization - receptive and responsive (participative) generalization — as well as exemplary generalization.