Ex 7.4 Answer

The following notes apply to the post 7.4 Resisting analogies.

What kind of argument is it?
All arguments by analogy are inductive arguments. They rely on something that we have seen before (the past) to guide us about the present or future.

What is the claim?
The claim is that the kind of regeneration described in the movie ‘Hulk’ may not be so far from scientific reality.

Is it a good or a bad argument?
It is not such a good argument, and indeed it contains its own refutation. On the one hand, it tries to draw analogies between the kind of regeneration in the movie and that which we evidence in nature. But there is quite a difference between the movie kind of ‘regeneration’ and the natural kind of regeneration. The argument undermines itself by pointing out that the natural cases are not at all the same thing as multiplying the size or strength of a body.

The claim hinges on whether there is any causal link between the processes of growth in nature and the idea of a multiplying one’s body size and strength. Since we have no example of any organism that can do that in nature, the analogy can’t be said to hold.

Continue reading

Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: