Evaluation of Analogical Arguments by Choquet Integral

Analogical arguments are a special type of inductive arguments, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Although they are not deductively valid, they may yield conclusions that are very probably true, and may be more cogent than others in persuasive contexts. This paper tackles the question of their evaluation. It starts by discussing their features, how they can be attacked/supported, and key considerations for their evaluation. It argues in particular for the need of semantics that are able to take into account possible interactions (synergies, redundancies) between attackers (respectively supporters) of any analogical argument. It presents principles that serve as guidelines for choosing candidate semantics. Then, it shows that existing (extension, gradual, ranking) semantics are not suitable as they may lead to inaccurate assessments. Finally, it redefines three existing semantics using the well-known Choquet Integral for aggregating attackers/supporter, and discusses their properties.