A Paradigm Case of Analogy
Dans la présentation occidentale des schèmes d’argument comprend deux section principales, la première tourne autour du schème proprement dit, la seconde, autour d’un exemple illustrant le schème.
The following passage may be taken as a paradigmatic case of analogy:
The wise man who has charge of governing the empire should know the cause of disorder before he can put it in order. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it. It is similar to the problem of a physician who is attending a patient. He has to know the cause of the ailment before he can cure it. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot cure it. How is the situation different for him who is to regulate disorder? He too has to know the cause of the disorder before he can regulate it. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it. The wise man who has charge of governing the empire must, then, investigate the cause of disorder.
MoziMEI, Universal Love 4, I.
The passage is presented as one sole paragraph in the original text. The following numbering and disposition are ours:
1. The wise man who has charge of governing the empire should know the cause of disorder before he can put it in order. 2. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it.
3. It is similar to the problem of a physician who is attending a patient.
4. He has to know the cause of the ailment before he can cure it. 5. 5. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot cure it.
6. How is the situation different for him who is to regulate disorder? 7. He too has to know the cause of the disorder before he can regulate it. 8.Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it.
9. The wise man who has charge of governing the empire must, then, investigate the cause of disorder.
Mozi’s demonstration takes place in two stages, the first justifying the thesis and the second confirming that no one dares to answer it. No rebuttal is mentioned.
Positive argumentation
— Claim: (1) and (2) state the thesis
(1) To put the government in order = O
To know the cause of the disorder = C
Proposition (1) expresses a necessary condition (NC):
For O (to put the government in order), C (to know the cause of the disorder) is necessary
Which is noted: O => C (O requires, implies C).
(2) reformulates the thesis:
(1) C is a NC of O = (2) non-C implies non-O.
— Warrant: Elucidation of the argumentation scheme, (3) announces that the thesis will be proved by an argument by analogy. Warrant: « is similar to »; implicit backing: the traditional assimilation of the « human body » to the « social body ».
— Argument
Source domain: Medicine. (4) presents a fact (as) known and admitted by all.
The structure of the argument strictly follows the structure of the thesis by substituting the doctor (who repairs the human body) for the wise man (who seeks how to repair human society).
The modes of sentence construction are identical. The presentation of the analogy as a parallel case pushes the similarity to identity.
Search for a refutation
A test of the validity of the analogy follows in the form of a rhetorical question, (5), interpreted as a challenge to a possible opponent, who is given the floor to show that the analogy is invalid. Question (5) remaining unanswered, this maneuver concludes with an argument from ignorance.
The argumentation repeats (reinforces, confirms) the essential element of the argument, the claim: (6) and (7) repeat word for word (1) and (2). This introduces into the reasoning an element of rhetorical persuasion (epikeirema) into the argumentation.
(8) repeats the thesis by replacing the expression « must know » (1) with « must investigate », the first step on the way to knowledge. To investigate and to know must not be understood in their contemporary sense. .
Schemes and Paradigm Cases
The same idea of argumentation scheme can be understood in two equivalent ways.
– In intension, as an abstract, logico-semantic form expressing the essence of reasoning. The scheme of the opposites and the a fortiori scheme are examples of such forms.
– In extension, as the potentially very large set of passages assembled on the basis of their argumentative similarity; the set of arguments that can be paraphrased by the same formula; the set of arguments that derive from the same phrasal pattern. A functional knowledge of arguments can be based on paradigmatic examples.