Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On the role of interpretive analogy in learning

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Almost all approaches to learning by analogy concentrate on what I will call predictive analogy, namely the process of inferring further similarities between two objects given some existing similarities. While the role of predictive analogy as a general purpose learning heuristic is rather dubious, a point I will make briefly in this paper, there is another mode of analogy—namely the process ofcreating similarities between two objects where none existed before, and which I will refer to as interpretive analogy—that aids learning in much more significant ways. However, the process underlying interpretive analogy has not been properly addressed yet. In this paper I introduce this mode of analogy, discuss its role in learning, and present an algebraic approach to formalizing the underlying process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Carpenter G.A. and Grossberg S., 1987, “A Massively Parallel Architecture for a Self-Organizing Neural Pattern Recognition Machine,”Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing 37, pp. 54–115.

  2. Cohn P.M., 1981,Universal Algebra, revised edition, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Gordon W.J.J., 1961,Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Greiner, R., 1985,Learning by Understanding Analogies, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hesse M.B., 1974,The Structure of Scientific Inferences, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hofstadter D.R. 1981/85. “Metamagical Themas: Roles and Analogies in Human and Machine Thought,”Scientific American, Vol. 245, No. 3, Sept. 1981; reprinted with some additional material as “Analogies and Role in Human and Machine Thinking”, inMetamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern, Basic Books, Inc. (1985), New York; Chap. 24 (pp. 547–603).

  7. Indurkhya B., 1989, “Modes of Analogy,” in K. P. Jantke (ed.)Analogical and Inductive Inference, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 397, Springer-Verlag (1989), Berlin, GDR, pp. 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Indurkhya B., 1990, “Metaphor as Change of Representation,” submitted toCognitive Science.

  9. Indurkhya B., forthcoming,Metaphor and Cognition.

  10. Keynes J.M., 1921,A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan & Co., London.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Koestler A., 1964,The Act of Creation, Hutchinsons of London; 2nd Danube ed., 1976.

  12. Mal’cev A.I., 1973,Algebraic Systems, translated by B.D. Seckler and A.P. Doohovskoy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, FRG.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Michalski R.S., 1986, “Understanding the Nature of Learning: Issues and Research Directions,” in R.S. Michalskiet al. (eds.),Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. 2, M. Kaufmann (1986), Los Altos, Calif., pp. 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nii H.P., 1986, “Blackboard Systems,” Technical Report No. STAN-CS-86-1123 (also numbered KSL-86-18), Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  15. nO’Hara S., forthcoming, “An Algebraic Approach to Proportional Analogy,” Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, Mass.

  16. Rosch E., 1978, “Principles of Categorization,” in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.)Cognition and Categorization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Russell S.J., 1987,Analogical and Inductive Reasoning, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Dept., Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schön D.A., 1979, “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy,” in A. Ortony (ed.)Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge Univ. Press (1979), Cambridge, UK, pp. 154–283.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wittgenstein L., 1953,Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed., translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, 02215, Boston, MA, USA

    Bipin Indurkhya

Authors
  1. Bipin Indurkhya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Indurkhya, B. On the role of interpretive analogy in learning. NGCO 8, 385–402 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037095

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037095

Keywords