P&R 42-2-04 Macagno Walton

7/31/2019 P&R 42-2-04 Macagno Walton

1/29

Philosophy and Rhetoric, V. 42, N. 2, 2009C 2009 T P S U, U P, PA

A A L, C , R T

Fabrizio Macagno and Douglas Walton

A . A

j, ( J 2005) - , . T , , , -, . M fi , , . B -

, .

analogy in legal reasoning

A ( H2005). T ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 154 4/17/09 5:54:45 PM


2/29

, ,

155

fi . T fi (W 2005, 92). I , - fi .

T ff ff , ff . W K ff , A W , . T ,

B (1996) , ;, . T . S fi , , , ( G 1997), ( G 1999). O ( W 1996), . D- ()

, qfi ( A ). W , qfi. T (), , - . F , :

.T fl.

I , () fl. H, : , , , . T - ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 155 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


3/29

fabrizio macagno and douglas walton

156

j (A, opics, I, 5). T - , ( W, R, M2008). F , fi (W, R, M 2007, 9; H 1963, 3652;K 1992, 25052; W 2006, 129):

Definition Premise Classification Premise Conclusion

a F. F x, F, x fi G ( G F).

a G.

. T fl ( , fl).

T, fl.

A - , ff .

I ff , ff K Juristische Logik.

Ulrich Klug

K - , , ff (K 1951, 11012). T ff :

;

-, fi ;

, .

P&R 42-2_04.indd 156 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


4/29

, ,

157

I fi . I , , . T fi fl A - . G j A ( j) B ( ) A B, A, B. O , - j fi ff. F , A , B , , (). T fi ff ()

(). I , fiff :

I P () A, Q () B.

T j .

T K ( A ), . T

, ff . T , , . T (113):

T T P .T T P ff .T, ff .A ff .

T A T ff .

T, A T .

F, , . T , , Quaternio terminorum

:

M P.S M ( , , . . .).

T S P.

P&R 42-2_04.indd 157 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


5/29


158

I , M S ff , q . H, M S , . T , , , relative to some unstated properties.

T : . K, Z, ff . j , , -

ff. F , , , , ff. Z, , , , , . j ( , ),

ff, j .

T ff - . I j , K , . j fi ,

1,2,. . .. R

(K 1951, 125):

[(1,2,. . .

C 1,2,. . .

) & ( C-1,2,. . .

)] (C- 1,2,. . .

)

I , fi , ; fi , . T , , .

P&R 42-2_04.indd 158 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


6/29


7/29


160

3. x, y H.4. T F, G. . . ffi

H .5. T, H z.

T , 4. T , , , q. T (1996, 968, 971):

I

1. F G.. . .4. T F G (ffi )

H ( - ).5. T, (ffi ) H y.

V

1. F G.. . .4. A F G H.

5. T,y H.

T . H . T ff . T - , B, (1982). T q .

Lloyd Weinreb

I W , . I B - , , W, ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 160 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


8/29

, ,

161

(2005, 71). T , , . T , , . W B , 4 (2005, 29):

I p, q r s, p, q r s.

T - s : , p, q, r, p, q r ffi .

:

M j . , E . I . (2005, 68)

I , -

, - , . W ff (, ), ff . A , . I, fi . F , ff :

I - .O .O .

P&R 42-2_04.indd 161 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


9/29


162

A

I .O ff .O .

I , , , , . T ,

- , . T . T . H, , - , . T fi, fi, .

analogy in the classical tradition

S 1 ff : , , , .

T , -, , , j ff j. D , .

Comparison and Classification

C, Gparadigma, P . A , , , A . C, ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 162 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


10/29

, ,

163

fi. T . F , TeSophist, . T , , , , , , , , , , . S, , , (P, Sophist, 233E). T . T , j. T :

(234C) ( G 1947, 18, 19). I , , -: , , , q q (G 1947, 19). T j, (ibid., 20), , fi .

T fi - . I ,

. F , fi .F , :

Imitator: A , .

T S

fi- .

Activity and relationshipof its result with reality.

T P

.

H .

Activity H , , , , , , , .

Sophist Painter

P&R 42-2_04.indd 163 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


11/29


164

T j .

Aristotle on Analogy, Example, and Illustration

C, , fi j . I P , . T A ff fi .

similarity and genus: example, illustration, and fable

T A -. L ,

: . I (opics I, 18).

T fi j ( ) -. T ff . I , , - j . G

. F , j , j ,

topoi:

T ; , . T ; , .

T ; , .

T ; , - .

A ; , ( ).

A ; -, .

P&R 42-2_04.indd 164 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


12/29

, ,

165

A 4 , , . F , , , ff; , , . T ff .

E, , , , , , , , , (A, Rhetoric, I, 2, . 21).

F , , , .

F , D, , , P , , , , .

I , , a b, fi . F P

a, P . I -, : P b, P b . T A Prior Analytics fi :

L A , B , C A T, D T P. I A T , fi . E

, .. T P. A , A T , A T .(A, Prior Analytics, II, 24; 68386919)

H j, C D, , . I (B), ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 165 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


13/29


166

j D, j C. W , j :

I fi. I (A), , j (D), W T P. I (B) j (D)

j . I , (-) . I fi. T A

T (C) , j , .

A , , , . T fi -

. I , . A :

W fi ffi ; j ; , . . . . (Rhetoric, II, , 4, . 166)

P&R 42-2_04.indd 166 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


14/29

, ,

167

I A .T . H, j (D) , j , .

similarity of relations: analogyT opics. A , , : . T , - , , , . I -

, A :

: . I , . (opics, IV, 4)

I , , .H j : , -

. W q :

P- P-

G- P U

G- P G

R , , . T ff

. I :

- , , . (opics, V, 7)

P&R 42-2_04.indd 167 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


15/29


168

T . P, , ( ). F , . I , . S fi fi j, j. T ff j.

T ff . I , , (opics, V, 7). F ,A x B y. I , q . H, q: , , .

analogy

T , Gana logon, , . T , Posterior Analytics, fi Rhetoric.R Analytics . T , -, ? (opics, I, 18) q, W ? B . I , , . F , fi , . T , (- -) (Posterior Analytics, 9815). T : fi ( q W ?)

P&R 42-2_04.indd 168 4/17/09 5:54:46 PM


16/29

, ,

169

.

R Rhetoric :

A ; I , , , . A T, , ,D , S C,

, - ? (A, Rhetoric, II, XIII, 17, . 186)

T . T . A fi : . I , - ,

. O , . I , fi.A , ( ). A , , fi. T , , . T , . T

:

G G

S G

C M

P&R 42-2_04.indd 169 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


17/29


170

T ff - . F , , .

modern theories on arguments from exampleand analogy

T

. T ff ,, ff . M - , .

R ff . O , W (1859), P O- (1969), C J (1992), W(1984) .I , C J

, W , , , . O , G, W, G . T fl q . G . S ff a priori , . E a priori , . T ( W ); fl . T J (2005). O , G, W - (W 2001, 2012):

P&R 42-2_04.indd 170 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


18/29

, ,

171

Deductive (Goviers a priori) Analogy

1. W a.2. T -

a C.

3. C b (b fi C).

4. T, q b.

Inductive Analogy

1. D e,f,g, h.2. E e,f,g, h.

3. D k.

4. H e, f, g, h k.

5. T, E k.

W

(2001, 206). F , W , .

T G (2004).A , - . T , - (157). H , , (161):

1. a f1, f

2, f

n.

2. b f1, f

2, f

n.

3. a b fi f

n+1.

T . T G W a priori,

, ff j fi . W , . A , G ; ( A 2007). M, , G , :

P&R 42-2_04.indd 171 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


19/29


172

, .

T - . T . S, ff . T ff 4 5, .

similarity, genus, and relevance

T : , -, -. I - , . I ( fi ) ( R G 2006), . O , -

j . Dfi ( ) ( , , j ) j. F , , , , . G (, ) ( ) : , , , .

Dfi, , fi, fi ff. F , fi 18 U.S.C.S. 924()(3) ff , , . I fi , , fi ff . I , fi, , . I - ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 172 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


20/29

, ,

173

fi . G fi fi. T , , j - , fi .

A . O -fi , fi, ff () (, q,.). F , :

O , .

I , ff. H, . T , , . I .

O , -. I fi , () fi ff , , .I , -, , j. I , - , , . T :

Example Analogy

Ix A, y A. Ix A, y B.

x y G. (x A) (y B) .

x A. T (x y) (A B).

EGA. x A.

y A. y B.

P&R 42-2_04.indd 173 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


21/29


174

A . I A, . I A - , . I , , C (opics, III):

A , : I , ,

q ,

, , , - q , .

T , :

A U.S. - - Y

q. (C P 1982, 137)

I , , . I , .

W , . I , W 1.4. S . T - (P 2006). I , , - . T j .

T , ff , j.

P&R 42-2_04.indd 174 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


22/29

, ,

175

T - - (CBR). I - , ( L 1996). W fi ( A 1991), , ffi j . I , , (A 1991, 758):

1. ,

;2.

;3. , .

T . T CBR . I , ,

, , .(B A 2003). ; , . T . F ( ) . I , - - ( L 2003,199; B A 2003).

I , , , :

F , .(C, De Inventione, I, 47)

P&R 42-2_04.indd 175 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


23/29


176

H j fi . H . I, . C- fi fi . T fi fi- .

weakness and fallaciousness

O, q . A , - . I , q . H, . I - , .

R q . T , (M K1968), (C J 1992). I B , (1990, 12, 13):

T j P S-j (PS), , P(P), j , A (A)

j, S (S).

Scheme Example

P 1: PS A S1. . .S. T .

P 2:A P. A .

C: S PS P. T, .

P&R 42-2_04.indd 176 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


24/29

, ,

177

I , B P PS A.I P , . I, , P P, (B 1990, 19; - , M 1959). A J B (1983). I , j q (100).

I , , , . F , , j. I , j. T ( ) j, , .

A , q ,

, , , . T , . T j G fi G . I , j fi.F , Fairbanks Soap Co. vs. Sheppard, S, , F $9800. W , , - , S . I , . T , Dakin & Co. vs. Lee, ff ,

(Fairbanks Soap Co. vs. Sheppard [1953] 2D.L.R.193 [S.C.C.], 117).

T Dakin & Co. vs. Lee . T ,

P&R 42-2_04.indd 177 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


25/29


178

D C : , (HDakin & Co. Ltd v Lee1 KB 866 [1916], q FairbanksSoap Co. vs. Sheppard[1953] 2D.L.R. 193 [S.C.C.]):

; , . C - fi

, j ?

T fi - , . H, : .S , .

A

. I , , , fi . T j fi fi . T fi, fi j. F , :

T -fi , - . Sfi

- . B , ff, . I

, , q , q . T ff

P&R 42-2_04.indd 178 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


26/29

, ,

179

. H - 40 . G

. (L, G, 1989, 248)

H fi .

conclusion

R

. T ff. H, , - , j .L A-A ;

. T . H(2005)

. Cq, - , , . A - fi , - . T ,

.

Department of LinguisticsCatholic University of Milan

Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric

University of Windsor

P&R 42-2_04.indd 179 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


27/29


180

notes

1. J (2005) , ff

.

2. T fi q:

. O ,

, . T

. T

(W 2005, 112-13).

3. I fi ,

,

j fi : fi (opics, I, 18).

4. L , fi, ff ,

A:B = C:D (.. j ,

j ), A A B, C D (..

, , , ).

P ;

, . W

,

, .. ;

, (opics, I, 17).5. I , (opics, I, 18).

6. . (2009). IEncyclopdia Britannica. R J 08, 2009, E-

B O: ://../EB//22465/

7. T J (2005)

H (2005).

works cited

A, J. 2007. A .Argumentation 21 (1): 8392.

A, R. 1989. A theory of legal argumentation: Te theory of rational discourse astheory of legal justification. O: C.

A. 1851. On rhetoric. . . B. L: H G. B.A. 1939. opica. . E. S. F. C, M.: H U P.A. 1984. P . I Te complete works of Aristotle, . J B,

39113. P, N.J.: P U P.A, K. 1991. R . International

Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (6): 75396.B, S. 1996. E : S, ,

. Harvard Law Review 109:9231038.

P&R 42-2_04.indd 180 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


28/29

, ,

181

B, S, K A. 2003. P - . I Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial

intelligence and law (ICAIL-03), 23442. E: ACM P.B, S, K A. 2003. A

. I Proceedings 16th annual conference on legal knowledge andinformation system ( J-03), 15362. A: IOS P.

B, J. 1990. Within reason: A guide to non deductive reasoning. P,O.: B P.

C, J, D P. 1982. Critical reasoning. B, C.: W.C. 1949. De Inventione, De optimo genere oraturum, opica. . H. H.

C, M.: H U P.C, I, K B-J. 1992.Informal logic. N Y: MM.G, V. 1947. Le Paradigme dans la dialectique platonicienne. P: P

U F.G, . 1989. A .Informal Logic11 (3): 14152.G, M. 2004. A -

.Informal Logic24 (2): 15368.H, J. 2005. T .Argumentation 19 (4): 40115.H, A. 1962. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation.

P.D. ., N U.J, R, A B. 1983. Logical self defence. : MG-H.J, A. 2005. A .Argumentation 19 (1): 127.K, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentations-

mustern. S: F-H.K, U. 1951. Juristische Logik. B: S.

L, D. 1996. C- : E, , .I Case-based reasoning: Experiences, lessons, and future directions, . D. B. L,130. C, M.: MI P.

L, L. 2003. O jfi .Associations 7(1): 185200.

L, F, L G, C . 1989. Good reasoning matters!: MC S.

M, P, A K. 1968. Essentials of logic. N Y: A BC.

M, J S. 1959 . A system of logic. L: L.P, C, L O-. 1969. Te new rhetoric: A treatise on

argumentation. N D, I.: U N D P.P. 1990. Sophist. . W C. S, M.: R Lfi.P, R. 2006. R . Cornell Law Review 761:76174.R, E, S G. 2006. opics: Te argument generator. U

S I, .. (20 M 2008).W, B. 2001. C .Informal Logic21 (3): 199218.W, D, C R, F M. 2008. Argumentation schemes.

C: C U P.W, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. M,

N.J.: L E.

P&R 42-2_04.indd 181 4/17/09 5:54:47 PM


29/29


182

W, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. C: CU P.

W, L. 2005. Legal reason: Te use of analogy in legal argument. N Y:C U P.

W, J. 1984. V . Philosophy of Science51:13749.W, R. 1859.Elements of logic. L: L, G & C.

Documents

P&R 42-2-04 Macagno Walton