A priori analogies and application of concepts

Abstract

Do a priori analogies constitute a type of argument distinct from deductive arguments? My aim in this paper is to address this long controversy. I claim that the principles of rational foundation that we use in a priori analogies are essentially the same as those that we use in deductive argumentation. This view is grounded on a general thesis about the relation between our capacity to apply concepts and our intuitive capacity to logically argue. Therefore, at least from a logical point of view, there is no reason to admit that a priori analogies constitute a distinct type of argument. We should not suppose, however, that the use of a priori analogies is dispensable