EXAMPLE
The word example has two main meanings:
1) Example-1: Any element of a category of cases or events grouped under the same definition, law or principle. Any such item makes it possible to identify new members of the category; may serve to establish, clarify and explain the definition, law or principle it embodies.
2) Example-2: A way of being or doing that is worthy of imitation: setting an example, leading by example, being an example, being a role model for the community.
An exemplary person perfectly synthetizes and embodies the moral or professional norm and with whom it is possible to identify.
In addition to the specific forms of argumentation described below, the following forms of argumentation are related to the example: S. Exemplum; Imitation; Ab exemplo.
1. The example in the Aristotelian rhetorical system
In one version of the Aristotelian rhetorical system, the induction and the syllogism are the instruments of scientific discourse, while the example and the enthymeme are their counterparts in rhetorical discourse (Rhet, II, 20, 1393a20-25, RR p. 335). There are different kinds of examples:
[Argument by example] has two varieties; one consisting in the mention of actual past facts, the other in the invention of facts by the speaker. Of the latter there are again two varieties, the illustrative parallel and the fable. (Id., 1393a25-30; RR p. 357-358)
Place of examples in a table of rhetorical devices:
Comparison
Aristotle gives as an example of a “parable”, an analogy drawn from the speeches of Socrates. This parable condemns the practice of drawing lots for magistrates, since one does not “use the lot to select a helmsman from the crew of a ship” (Rhet., II, 20, 1393b5, RR, p. 335); see Metaphor.
Fable
Aristotle gives as an example of the fable of the horse that wanted revenge on the stag, and thus became a slave to man, with an application to the saviors of the fatherland who quickly became tyrants (Rhet, II, 20, 1393a5-25, RR p. 337). As portraits (see Ethos), fables are a fully argumentative and literary genre, from Aesop (620 – 564 BCE) to modern times, see Exemplum.
A modern version of the fables could be the anecdote: « iPhone owners are obnoxious. Recently I went camping… » and the anecdote develops, highlighting the terrible behavior of one iPhone user and generalizing this case to all iPhone users.
In Aristotelian terms, this is an argument based on a real past fact, elaborated as a truth-telling narrative. Anecdotes can certainly have a kernel of truth, and be told in a veridical tone; fables themselves can be called upon to serve truth, see precedent.
Other characteristics of the anecdote bring it closer to the fable or the tale: the educational function, the conversational entertainment, the importance of storytelling and the storyteller; on the strictly argumentative level, the difficulty of contradicting an anecdote, and the quasi impossibility of refuting it directly, except with another decisive anecdote, all of which suggest that the anecdote has inherited some of the characteristics and functions of the fable.
Actual past facts
The argument from an example based on past, real facts is illustrated by two historical facts leading both of which lead to the conclusion, “We must prepare for war against the king of Persia and not allow Egypt to be subjugated, » in view of two past experiences that were unfavorable to the Greeks:
For Darius of old did not cross the Aegean until he had seized Egypt; but once he had seized it, he did cross. And Xerxes again did not attack us until he had seized Egypt. but once he had seized it, he did cross.
(Rhet., II, 20, 1393a30-b5, RR p. 335) – *Darius, 522-486; Xerxes, 486 à 465.
This is a case of strategic observation closely linked to a specific geographical situation. It can be considered as an historical precedent, that functions like a judicial precedent. Specialists in the field have to pronounce on a case:
What should we do when the Persian army enters Egypt? or: Now that they are in Egypt?
The Persian army is in Egypt, what does that mean? – What will they do next?
To answer the question, they first look to see if can find similar cases in the past. In this case, they find two cases, which is not much for an historical law, but more than enough to suggest a sufficient strategic response, « they cross the sea to Europe”, and the correlative decision of action: let’s prepare for war, see Precedent.
2. Generalizing from a λ-example
2.1 Example-based law-like generalizations
A generalization can be made from a random item (λ-example), idiosyncratic or generic.
2.1.1 Generalisation on a random idiosyncratic example
As a generalization (induction) based on a single specific case, the argument from example takes an observation made about an individual, and generalizes it categorically to all individuals of the same class or with the same name:
This butterfly is blue, so (all) butterflies are blue.
Logically, from « this B is P« , one can only infer “some B are P” from “this B is P”. The generalization on the basis of a single specific case corresponds to the converse of the instantiation of a universal proposition, which is valid; if “all I are P » then “this I is P”.
This swan is white, that’s okay, since (all) swans are white.
Argument by example is a kind of hasty generalization or induction based on a single case, or a relatively small number of cases. It can also be a case of two-term reasoning.
2.1.2 Scientific generalization on a generic example or ecthesis
A generic example is a being in which all the properties of the genus to which it belongs are clearly manifested. It is a prototype of the class, its best embodiment, S. Category; Intra-categorical Analogy. The argument from the generic example is based on such a specimen and leads to conclusions about a given genus (about all the individuals belonging to that genus):
The generic example consists in explaining the reasons for the validity of a proposition by performing operations or transformations on a given concrete object, which is not considered by itself but as a characteristic representative of a class. (Balacheff 1999, p. 207).
The process is also known as ecthesis, which is defined as
“[a] technique of demonstration used especially in Euclidean geometry: to prove a theorem, you reason on a singular figure. Your inference is correct if it does not mention the characteristics peculiar to the figure drawn, but only those which it shares with all the figures of its kind.” (Vax 1982, Ecthèse)
2.1.3 Generic example or idiosyncratic individual?
The argument by example is a legitimate extrapolation when it is based on a generic feature. For example, if one asks how many wings birds can have, observing any bird will lead the observer to the correct answer. On the other hand, if you ask what is the average weight of a pigeon, the same procedure is absurd: “This pigeon taken at random weighs 322 g. So the average weight of a pigeon is 322 g.”.
Since in many cases, it is not known beforehand whether the studied characteristic is essential or random, this distinction is used as an argumentative resource. The proponent argues that the generalization is valid because it is based on an essential property, and the opponent argues that it is accidental and cannot be generalized see classification; accident.
The remains of a single animal belonging to an unknown extinct species provide a wealth of knowledge about that species, but its specific conditions must be duly recognized, as the case of the Neanderthal man shows.
1. Scientists’ views of Neanderthals have changed over time. (from G. Burenhult, « [Towards Homo Sapiens] », 1994[1])
More specifically: Is the Neanderthal our ancestor or a species other than our own?
2. First answer: The Neanderthal man belongs to our species. « It has long seemed obvious that the physical appearance of Neanderthals — and especially those living in Europe — was very different from ours”. However, “despite these physical differences, Neanderthals have long been regarded as direct ancestors of modern humans » (id., p. 66).
Second answer: Neanderthals are a different species. « According to the work of the French paleontologist Marcellin Boule these differences were considered too great; » (id., p. 67), and the Neanderthal man was considered to belong to a different species.
The Neanderthal of Marcellin Boule: « Starting in 1911, the paleoanthropologist Marcellin Boule published a detailed study of the skeleton. He created an image that has conditioned the popular perception of Neanderthals for more than thirty years. His interpretations are strongly influenced by the ideas of his time about these extinct hominids. He describes them as a kind of savage and brutal cave man, dragging his feet and unable to walk upright. »
“Marcellin Boule describes a Neanderthal with a flattened skull, a curved spine (similar to that of the gorilla), semi-flexible lower limbs and large divergent big toes. This description is in line with the ideas of the time about human evolution” (Wikipedia, Marcellin Boule).
4. But this Neanderthal was severely handicapped: « In 1913, Marcellin Boule exaggerated the differences with us, not realizing that the skeleton he studied — the “Old Man of the Chapelle aux Saints” (Corrèze, France) — was deformed by arthritis, as demonstrated by W. Strauss and A. J. Cave in 1952.” (id., p. 67)
“J.-L. Heim describes the subject as severely handicapped; he suffered a deformity of the left hip (epiphysiolysis or rather trauma), a crushed finger of the foot, severe arthritis of the cervical vertebrae, a broken rib, and a narrowing of the channels of the spinal nerves.” (Wikipedia, id.)
5. Conclusion: Our cousin, the Neanderthals: “Today Neanderthals are now considered our cousins rather than as our ancestors, even though they look like us in many ways” (ibid.).
The generic example serves as the basis for an abductive generalization, that leads to a rule or regularity about a class of cases or individuals.
Specific cases can be introduced in relation to such a general discourse.
2.2 Argument from the example
The illustrative example is named after its function, to facilitate the understanding of a concept or a law, by introducing an instantiation of the concept or the law:
A migratory bird is a bird that … So the swallow …
Moreover, if the chosen example is (presented as) typical of the phenomenon, the time-consuming and precarious work of examining a large number of cases becomes unnecessary. In this sense, to give an argument in defense of a general statement is simply to find a clear case to which it applies correctly.
The illustrative example at least shows that the conclusion is not undermined by the first example that comes to mind (see infra, § 6).
When a school essay proposes a general maxim to be commented and criticized, the basic argument is to give an example that both clarifies the meaning of the maxim and justifies the maxim.
That’s why, from a pedagogical point of view, the argument from example is considered as the basic form of argument.
The illustrative example can also be used as an epideictic amplification technique:
Whereas an example is designed to establish a rule, the role of illustration is to strengthen adherence to a known and accepted rule, by providing particular instances which clarify the general statement, show the import of this statement by calling attention to its various possible applications, and increase its presence to the consciousness. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 357)
2.3 Test case example and refutation by the counter-example (arg. in contrarium)
The test case example is different. It can be introduced as an objection to the theory, and the speaker must show that the general principle he is advocating can be successfully applied to this case, that it accounts for this case.
An example does not establish a law, but is sufficient to refute a generalization. The argument by counterexample is the standard method of refuting the general proposition “all A are B”: this proposition is refuted by showing an A which is not B. This strategy is perfectly operative in ordinary argument.
Nonetheless, theories are not so directly rebutted by facts, see refutation by facts.
3. Example 2: “exemplary example »: model, paragon, antimodel; imitation
3.1 Model, anti-model, paragons
An unspecified example is one element among all those that make up a category, defined by their characteristic features.
Categories are also structured aroung their prototypical elements, see Categorization; Analogy (I) ; Analogy (II); Precedent.
In the social domain at large, a model is an « exemplary example », a role model for the community of this or that kind of behavior. He is the standard by which the members of the category are judged; he attracts identification and is worthy of imitation.
Anti-models typify negative authority; (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 362).
Etymologically, a paragon is a touchstone for gold or silver. Metaphorically, a paragon of virtue is a touchstone of virtue, that is, his behavior is the unique criteria for recognizing and ranking virtuous persons. A paragon is the most excellent prototypical element.
The following example is taken from a television program in which contestants are asked questions and the winner is the one who answers the fastest. The question, read slowly, begins with:
Question: Who is the poe/t
Answer: /Victor Hugo
The slash / marks the moment when the candidate answers, “Victor Hugo”, without waiting for the full wording of the question i.e. the clue that should make it possible to identify the poet: « Who is the poet who wrote of the famous verse “Tomorrow, at dawn, at the hour when the countryside turns white? ». And “Victor Hugo” was indeed the correct answer. The conclusion is that, in France, Victor Hugo is the paragon of poets. It suggests that “who / what is the (name of a category) », What is the animal” could be used as a test to determine the paragon of the category, here, of course, the lion.
The “paragon of anti-models” is Hitler, see Authority §6: Refutative uses of authority.
3.2 Imitation
When an individual uses another person as a model, he is imitating that person, see ethos. The choice of a model is not necessarily conscious, nor is the model necessarily conscious of being a model. The whole process is not necessarily expressed linguistically, nor is it clearly argumentative. It is based on non-verbal mechanisms of social imitation, ripple effect, identification, empathy, charisma.
To persuade an individual to do something, one can proceed argumentatively, that is, discursively, by arguing by the example citing important people, real or fictional, who are doing or have done the same things. This « argument of exemplary behavior » can be seen as a variant of the verbal argument of authority, a metonymic exemplum.
More important, one may voluntarily set an example in order to show and demonstrate to the other what is desired, hoping to set alignment mechanisms in motion. For example, one can stop smoking in order to encourage a friend to stop smoking. This « argument of the example given » is all the more effective when it is done simply, without grand speeches: actions speak louder than words, as parents are reminded when they are told that they are the primary role models for their children.
This strategy of example can be applied to any form of behavior we wish to instill in another person; how to eat properly, how to speak properly, how to live a dignified life worthy of reward in the hereafter.
More than a type of argumentation, nonverbal models and examples appear as an alternative to argumentation
Seduction and repulsion are forces that push a person to conform themselves with a model and to distance themselves from an antimodel, see authority They play with forces different from those of verbal argument. There may be some kind of persuasion involved, i.e., a change in belief that correlates with a change in behavior, but not all persuasion comes from argument, see « You too! », consensus; ad populum.
[1] G. Burenhult, Vers Homo Sapiens. In Le Premier homme. Preface by Y. Coppens, Paris, Bordas, 1994, p. 67.