The document summarizes the argument from analogy, which aims to show that we are justified in inferring the existence of other minds based on analogies to our own behavior and thoughts. It notes that Norman Malcolm argued the argument from analogy does poorly in this aim. The document will assess Malcolm's objection to the argument from analogy as well as responses from Wittgenstein, Price, and Hampshire in defense of the argument from analogy. It also discusses Russell's view that believing in other minds requires postulating that thoughts or feelings cause bodily acts, even when observation does not enable knowing if the thoughts are present.

1. Argument From Analogy Essay
The argument from analogy is an inductive argument that focuses on the problem of other minds
and aims to show that we are justified in inferring the existence of other minds. British philosopher,
Bertrand Russell, describes the argument from analogy as follows: "The behaviour of other people
is in many ways analogous to our own, and we suppose that it must have analogous causes. What
people say is what we should say if we had certain thoughts, and so we infer that they probably have
these thoughts. They give us information which we can sometimes subsequently verify" (Russell,
"Analogy", p89). Norman Malcolm argues that the argument from analogy does poorly in its
attempts to show that we are justified in inferring the existence of other minds. In assessing whether
the argument from analogy succeeds in its aims, I will raise and respond to Malcolm's objection
against the argument from analogy; Austrian–born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's 'Beetle
in a Box' thought experiment; as well as Welsh philosopher H. H. Price's argument and English
philosopher Stuart Hampshire's argument in defence of the argument from analogy....show more
content...
From subjective observation, Russell claims to know that A, which is a thought or feeling,
causes B, which is a bodily act (Russell, "Analogy", p110). Russell argues that believing in the
existence of other minds requires some postulate, and describes this postulate to be "If, whenever
we can observe whether A and B are present or absent, we find that every case of B has an A as a
causal antecedent, then it is probable that most B's have A's as causal antecedents, even in cases
where observation does not enable us to know whether A is present or not" (Russell, "Analogy",
Get more content on HelpWriting.net