Where does analogy collide?

In comparative anatomy, two body parts are analogous when they do the same job but do not descend from the same part in a shared ancestor, which is the opposite of being homologous. Richard Owen's 1843 Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals drew this line, defining an analogue as a part that has the same function as another part in a different animal, against a homologue that is the same part under every variety of form. The referent is a relationship of resemblance between physical structures, such as the wing of an insect and the wing of a bird, judged by function and by evolutionary history. It is not a way of arguing, a step in a legal case, or a change in the shape of a word.[1]

Unit

A pairing of two structures judged alike by shared function without shared ancestry

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by comparing function and form across species and testing whether the resemblance tracks common descent

In historical linguistics, analogy is the process by which speakers remake a word or form on the pattern of other forms, so that an irregular item is rebuilt to match a more regular class. Hermann Paul's 1880 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte set out analogy as one of the main forces in language change, working alongside regular sound change to level and rebuild forms. A worked case is the older English plural kine giving way to cows, remade on the pattern of ordinary plurals. The referent is a mechanism that produces new word forms over time, not a resemblance between organs, a legal method, or a mental act of comparison.[2]

Unit

A single remade form produced on the pattern of an existing class

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Traced through historical records of a form's change and the model forms that shaped it

In legal reasoning, analogy is the method of deciding a new case by treating it like an earlier decided case it closely resembles, extending the earlier rule to the facts at hand. Edward Levi's 1949 An Introduction to Legal Reasoning described this as the basic movement of case law: a judge finds a similarity between cases, states a rule from the first, and applies it to the second. The referent is a procedure for justifying a decision from prior authority, tested by whether the likeness between cases is legally relevant. It is not a resemblance between anatomical parts, a change in language, or a general mental process of comparison.[3]

Unit

One case decided by likeness to a prior case and its rule

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Examined by the stated similarities and differences between the cited cases and the relevance a court gives them

In cognitive science, analogical reasoning is the mental process of carrying the relations of a familiar source situation over to a new target situation, so that what is known about one can guide understanding of the other. Dedre Gentner's 1983 structure-mapping theory formalised this, holding that a good analogy maps the system of relations between objects rather than the surface features of the objects themselves. The referent is a psychological operation on mental representations, studied by which inferences people draw and which matches they accept. It is not a resemblance between body parts, a rule-extending step in law, or a pattern-driven change in word forms.[4]

Unit

A single mapping from a source situation to a target situation

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Studied by the inferences people generate, the matches they judge sound, and response times in analogy tasks