Question

2. Consider the following argumentative analogy:

“If you found by chance a watch or other piece containing intricate mechanisms, you would infer that it had been made by someone. But all around us in nature we find by chance intricate natural mechanisms, so we should therefore infer that these too have a Maker. The only difference, on the side of nature, is that of the intricacy being more and greater and exceeding all computation” (William Paley, clergyman, Natural Theology, 1802).

(a) What is the analogue?

(b) What is the primary subject?

(c) If you’re careful, you’ll note two similarities. What are they?

(d) What is the conclusory feature?

(e) Put the argument in standard form.

(f) Paley himself mentions a dissimilarity between the analogue and

the primary subject. Tell me what that dissimilarity is. Do you think

it’s relevant? Why or why not?

(g)Are the premises independent or dependent? If they’re

independent, tell me what makes them independent. If they’re dependent, tell me what makes them dependent.

Answer 1

Answers

(a) The analogue refers to the continuous process of changing information values that can be measured. Also it refers to the similarities between each other in functions.

(b) The primary subject means the first or main part of the particular topic and things. In this argumentative analogy the primary subject is similarities and differentiation.

(c) The two similarities are: (i) Maker and (ii) Intricacy.

(d) The conclusory feature is that there is a little difference between the nature and artificial. In nature, the intricacy and computation are better and greater than artificial.