Analogical reasoning in public health
Analogical reasoning is a valuable logical resource in a public health context. It is used extensively by public health scientists in risk assessments of new technologies, environmental hazards and infectious diseases. For its part, the public also avails of analogical reasoning when it assesses a range of public health problems. In this article, some of these uses of analogical reasoning in public health are examined. Analogical arguments have courted approval and disapproval in roughly equal measure by a long succession of logicians and philosophers. The logical features of these arguments which make them simultaneously compelling and contemptible are considered. As a form of presumptive reasoning, analogical arguments have a valuable role to play in closing epistemic gaps in knowledge. This heuristic function of these arguments is illustrated through an examination of some uses of analogical reasoning in recent public health crises. Finally, the results of a study of analogical reasoning in 879 members of the public are reported. This study reveals that lay members of the public are able to discern the logical and epistemic conditions under which analogical arguments are rationally warranted in a public health context.
Keywords: analogical argument, heuristic, uncertainty, public health communication, reasoning
Published online: 22 September 2014
De Grandis, Giovanni
Finocchiaro, Maurice A.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Henry Brighton
Godden, David M., and Douglas Walton
Guarini, Marcello, Amy Butchart, Paul Simard Smith, and Andrei Moldovan
Hofmann, Bjørn, Jan Helge Solbakk, and Søren Holm
Hunt, Stephen, and Lynn J. Frewer
Mill, John Stuart
Plant, Aileen J.
Todd, Peter M., and Gerd Gigerenzer
Walton, Douglas N.
Wood, Andrew W.
Cited by 5 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 january 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.