摘要：Analogies are not sufficient to justify the knowledge they support. Since analogical reasoning is not conclusive, it always possible to find something else to change the orientation of thought. Nevertheless, they constitute powerful ampliative heuristic principles to start and guide a non-blinded search to find more satisfactory justifications about what we presume true. But also, they could secure our partial convictions and serve as stepping-stones to reach higher degrees of confiability of the started hypothesis. A very first good idea, instead of being just considered as a nonconclusive obstacle, may open roads for further investigation if we can count on them, on the way of looking for reasons that support the previous predictions. Analogies are useful not only because they allow us to increase the possible different perspective alternatives, but also because they give clues to bet in a specific course of action.
