ABSTRACT
A too common view of analogical arguments in law and in other domains holds that they necessarily lack the force of valid deductive argument and thus, by definition, that they are defeasible forms of argument. Against this it is argued here that, properly understood, some analogical arguments, including analogical arguments in law, do have the force of valid deductive arguments, and that these arguments are indefeasible. Paradigms of such supposedly indefeasible arguments are an important part of this discussion.
