Premium
Understanding Blended Multi‐Source Arguments as Arguments from Partial Analogies
Author(s) -
GUARINI MARCELLO
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
ratio juris
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.344
H-Index - 10
eISSN - 1467-9337
pISSN - 0952-1917
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00444.x
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , conceptual blending , epistemology , analogical reasoning , space (punctuation) , cognition , computer science , usury , cognitive science , sociology , linguistics , philosophy , psychology , analogy , biochemistry , chemistry , theology , neuroscience , islam
This paper identifies a type of multi‐source (case‐based) reasoning and differentiates it from other types of analogical reasoning. Work in cognitive science on mental space mapping or conceptual blending is used to better understand this type of reasoning. The type of argument featured herein will be shown to be a kind of source‐blended argument. While it possesses some similarities to traditionally conceived analogical arguments, there are important differences as well. The triple contract (a key development in the usury debates of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries) will be shown to make use of source‐blended arguments.