The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argues that punishment is, scientifically speaking, out of date. He points out that it makes no sense to punish a car when it refuses to start and that it is equally irrational to punish criminals, because in their case something is broken as well: they come from poor families, received poor education or have poor genes. In comparing criminals to broken inanimate objects Dawkins uses argumentation that is based on an analogy. In most approaches to argument schemes this type of argumentation is considered to be a special type of reasoning by analogy or comparison argumentation, often called figurative analogy because of the abstract nature of the comparison.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Doury, M. (2008). Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. (This volume).
Fearnside, W. W., & Holther, W. B. (1959). Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmunstern. Stuggart: Fromann-Holzboog.
McBurney, J. H., & G. E. Mills (1964). Argumentation and Debate. Techniques of a Free Society. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958)
Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke Argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers [Reasonable arguments. A study on norms for critical readers]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whately, R. (1846/1963). Elements of Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garssen, B. (2009). Comparing the Incomparable: Figurative Analogies in a Dialectical Testing Procedure. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9165-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)