Analogical Reasoning

Custom Writing Service
http://HelpWriting.net/Analogical-Reasoning 👈

1. 1
ANALOGICAL REASONING

Wendelin Küpers
Published as: Küpers, W. (2011). “Analogical Reasoning”, in Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning,
Seel, N. M. (Ed.) Springer Reference Works, Heidelberg: Springer.

Synonyms
argument by analogy, case-based reasoning,
metaphorical thinking,
Definition
Analogical Reasoning and its uses
Analogical reasoning or argument by analogy can be defined as a specific way of thinking, based on the
idea that two or more things are similar in some respects, while concluding that they are probably also
similar in some further respect. Integrating various human-level reasoning mechanisms, arguing by ana-
logical thinking use analogies that is transferring knowledge from one particular entity (the analogue or
source) to another one (the target), and a linguistic form which corresponds to the process of relating
them. As an inference analogies allow drawing conclusions by applying heuristics to hypothetical propo-
sitions or observations as well as by interpolating next logical steps or patterns in an intuited way. In con-
trast to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is gen-
eral, analogies focus on relating specific particularities.
Analogical Reasoning is used, among others, in the worlds of science, jurisprudence, politics, but also
every-day practices like learning or problem-solving as it shows the significance and helps to make con-
nections between different concepts and conveys knowledge from an understood domain to one that is
unfamiliar or not directly perceptual. Furthermore, it provides the base for understanding causality and
differences as well as facilitates innovation and creative learning of new conceptual knowledge and gen-
eral principles via abstraction.

Relevance
Analogies and analogical reasoning have been considered a central part of human intelligence and cogni-
tion and cognitive abilities like memory access, adaptation, learning, and creativity (Gust et al. 2008).
Understood as proclivity to take what we perceive, to abstract it, and to find resemblances to prior experi-
ences, for Hofstadter and Sander (2010), the ability to make analogies is the very essence of human
thought. Accordingly analogy-making pervades human thinking, categorising, imagining, speaking and
understanding at all levels, as well as it is guiding in unfamiliar or decision-making situations and helps
finding order out of the chaos of the world. Analogical and metaphorical reasoning provides a means of
enhancing human capacity for creative yet disciplined thought and learning, in a way that allows us to
grasp and deal with the many-sided character of phenomena. The educational value of analogical pro-
cessing is evident, not only by that they allow effective learning of a new domain by transferring
knowledge from a known domain, but as it promotes noticing and abstracting principles across domains.
Practically, analogical thinking is the basis of much of problem solving in the sense that many of these
problems are solved based on previous examples. This involves abstracting details from a particular set of
problems, comparing and resolving structural similarities and extracting commonalities’ between previ-
ously distinct realms. Furthermore, analogical reasoning and particularly analogy counter-arguments
(Shelley 2004) are also relevant to critical thinking and argumentation.

2. 2


Theoretical Background
The ancient theoretical reflection on analogy (αναλογια i.e. proportionality) and analogical reasoning in-
terpreted comparison, metaphor and images as shared abstraction, and then used as arguments. Through-
out history there have been many links between models and multiple analogies in science and philosophy
(Shelley 2003). Nowadays, analogical thinking is ubiquitous in all cognitive activities and has been quali-
fied as core of cognition (Holyoak et al. 2001). Being used in cognitive science, analogical thinking has
often been discussed in relation to human intelligence and as related to elementary and componential in-
formation processes functions as a based for intelligent behaviour.
There have been several theories proposed to explain analogical reasoning. One of the most well-known
is the structure mapping theory (Gentner 1983). According to this theory the use of analogy depends on
an aligned mapping of elements from a source to target. The mapping takes place not only between ob-
jects, but also between relations of objects and between relations of relations. This shows the significance
of analogy as being more than similarity in that it is part of shared structural relations or relational com-
monalities and its subprocesses. Based on background knowledge from memory for sources that are simi-
lar to the target, individuals determine whether there is a good match between what is retrieved and the
target.
Relating and comparing two analogies fosters learning and can lead to new inferences, reveal meaningful
differences, or form abstractions. To avoid pitfalls, analogical mapping requires ensuring that the base
domain is understood well, that the correspondences are clear, and that differences and potentially incor-
rect inferences are clearly flagged. However, analogical comparison has also been shown to improve
learning even when both examples are not initially well understood (Kurtz et al. 2001).
The multi-constraint theory (Holyoak & Thagard 1995) outlines those factors that govern and limit the
use of constructed analogies. Specifically, these are related to the match in structure, meaning, and pur-
pose between the source and the target. According to this theory analogies can be considered coherent to
the extent that it satisfies the following constraints:
 Structural consistency: each mapping is a 1-to-1 correspondence;
 Semantic similarity: corresponding concepts are similar in meaning; and
 Pragmatic effectiveness: the analogy provides information relevant to the issue in question.
Factors which influence the success of an explanatory analogy, also include systematicity (conveying an
interconnected system of relations), and base specificity, (degree to which the structure of the base do-
main is clearly understood), transparency (ease with which the correspondences can be seen) and scope
(reach of applicability).
Analogical reasoning through Metaphorical Thinking
Analogical processes can take many linguistic forms like exemplification, comparisons, similes, allego-
ries, or parables, and in particular (conceptual) metaphors. Referring to the Greek origin “metaphorikos”
– from the Greek roots “meta”, (beyond, across) and “pherein” (carrying over, or bearing), i.e. meaning
transportation – metaphors are marking and making movements and analogues visible. Similar like
analoges, metaphors are ways in which terms that originally apply to one domain are projected onto an-
other domain in order to structure experience and meaning in a new way. As such they can be seen as
part of developing a symbolic understanding and vehicle for meaningful structuring of and communica-
tion in and with the world. As part of analogical reasoning, metaphorical thinking is a basic mode of
symbolism, a creative form that is effectuated through using and crossing of images for bridging between
worlds. Liberating imagination a metaphor and metaphorising is a way of seeing a thing as if it were
something else, thereby enable bridging between abstract constructs and concrete things or between the

3. 3
familiar to the unknown. According to Lakoff’ and Johnson’s ‘embodied realism’ (1980, 1999) all our
abstract conceptualization and reasoning, all our thought and symbolic expression and interaction are tied
intimately to our embodiment and to the pervasive aesthetic characteristics of all experience. Accordingly
metaphors and reasoning with them are both constitutive of the structure of bodily experience, as well as
emerge from this experience. As one of their functions, embodied metaphor(ising) translates an experi-
enced reality into a perceptible object that has emotive import as well as discursive content, and both are
inseparable from the creative imagination that poetically co-creates the “object”. In this way metaphors
have and mediate meanings that transcend, and are not reducible to either emotive utterance or rational
discourse. Processing a form of emotional and imaginative rationality, the use of metaphors in analogical
reasoning allows criticising and bridging the gap between the objectivist and subjectivist myths (Lackoff
and Johnson 1980).

Important Scientific Research and Open Questions
One important field of research concerns relating analogical thinking to non-cognitive dimensions like
embodied, sensual, emotional or aesthetic processes. For overcoming a purely propositional interpretation
of analogical reasoning it will be important to inquire into what it mean and imply that the analogical rea-
soning process is itself essentially embodied. For example how do embodied perceptual tendencies or felt
senses enable or constrain the ability to choose recognize an appropriate analogous comparison or solu-
tion? Correspondingly, linking schematic analogical reasoning and learning with somantic forms and in-
dividual feelings and collective emotions beyond emotional analogies as well as moods provide promis-
ing new areas for a more integral research.
Furthermore, it would be revealing to further investigate the status of imagination and how imaginary
processes and effects operate in the domains of analogical reasoning. With regard to levels, in addition to
an individual-based perspective it becomes important considering systematically what and how collective
dimension and co-creative practices constitute or impact analogical reasoning and its sharing.
Whether competence in analogical reasoning progress is a content-free manner, or if and how it is highly
dependent on specific domains is contested. As analogical reasoning cannot be properly understood in a
vacuum, it need to be situated and further explored in the context of wider issues, including that one of a
theory and practice of learning and development.
Furthermore it is vital to widen and deepen the scope for the application of a trope-based approach to ana-
logical reasoning by promoting analogical diversity, not analytical closure. For this the significance of
analogs and tropes, that privilege dissimilarity or discordant similarity, like anomaly, paradox or irony,
which are operating from within a cognitive discomfort zone, needs to be acknowledged. As such diver-
gent forms of analogical reasoning permit the coexistence of multiple perspectives they not only promote
pluri-vocality but provide the basis of generative, transformative, and frame-breaking insights and
knowledge generation and may help to create new theory (Oswick et al. 2002).
As there are always dissimilarities between an analogy and its target domain there are doubts that a faith-
ful mapping of the structural aspects happens, but that analogical inference-making transcends similarities
at hand (Cornelissen 2004). Thus, using an analogy is itself more a creative act through, which features of
importance are constituted and not simply transferred. This understanding allows seeing that meaning
structures emerges from blending source and target and its relations that cannot be traced back to either of
them. By reassembling elements from existing knowledge bases in a novel fashion ‘analogising’ can be
interpreted as an inventive and artful practice.
Furthermore, as analogies do not necessarily lead to a distinct or conclusive meaning structure, and inter-
pretations potentially change each time the analogy is revisited, they remain ambiguous help shape related
knowledge domains not only in certain ways, but also at certain points in time. The relevance of an ana-
logical source for a target domain shifts over time, not necessarily rendering old comparisons or domain
interactions obsolete, but allowing to develop new and different relationships.

4. 4
With regard to such more complex interpretation there is also the need for further research on the consti-
tution and dynamics of “compound analogue” comprising many different metaphors and interwoven fea-
tures.

Cross-References
→ Analogical learning
→ Analogical model(s)
→ Analogous learning / Analogy-based learning
→ Analogical modelling (of language)
→ Analogical reasoning in young children
→ Analogical transfer
→ Metaphors / Metaphorising
→ Metaphorical models of learning
→ Mental Model

References
1. Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Making Sense of Theory Construction: Metaphor and Disciplined Imag-
ination Organization Studies; vol. 27: pp. 1579 - 1597.
2. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science,
7, 155-170.
3. Hofstadter, D. & Sander, E. (2010). The Essence of Thought, New York: Basic Books
4. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. (1995), Mental leaps. Analogy in creative thought ,(Cambridge (MA):
MIT Press.
5. Holyoak, Keith J., Dedre Gentner, and Boicho N. Kokinov (2001), "Introduction: The Place of
Analogy in Cognition," in The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Dedre
Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, and Boicho N. Kokinov, eds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
6. Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 10, 417-446.
7. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge
to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
9. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and Analogical Reasoning in Organization
Theory: beyond Orthodoxy The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 2002),
pp. 294-303.