推类等于类比推理吗?

Is Tuilei the Same as Analogical Reasoning?——A Challenge to a Popular View in the Field of the History of Chinese Logic

近10年来,中国古代的推类理论被普遍认为有助于说明中国古代逻辑与西方(亚里士多德)逻辑的不同。关于推类的逻辑本质——推类的前提与结论之间究竟是何种推理关系,一种流行的观点是将推类与类比推理等而视之。不过,伍非百、汪奠基、沈有鼎、刘培育、孙中原等对类同原则的适用范围与推类的逻辑本质做了更为全面与准确的诠释。通过分析中国古代的推类实践,可以从中揭示出类同原则的工作机制,从而在经验层面上进一步确认类同原则对于演绎、归纳和类比推理的普遍意义,最终证成推类与类比推理并不等同。

In the last ten years, the theory of tuilei in ancient China has been widely used to explain the differences between ancient Chinese logic and western （Aristotelian） logic. As to the logical essence of tuilei--what is the inferential link between premises and conclusion in tuilei？ A popular view proposed by Qingtian Cui, Zhaoyang Huang and Xiaoguang Zhang, among others, is that tuilei should be treated as analogical reasoning.Feibai Wu, Dianji Wang, Youding Shen, Peiyu Liu and Zhongyuan Sun, however, seem to provide a more comprehensive and more reasonable interpretation of both the application range of the principle of sameness-in-kind and the logical essence of tuilei. In this paper the examples of tuilei in ancient China are carefully analyzed in order to formulate the working mechanism of the principle of sameness-in-kind. By means of the working mechanism the universal applicability of the principle of sameness-in-kind to deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning is empirically established and the view that tuilei should not be interpreted as the same as analogical reasoning is firmly justified.