Rubric · canonical · HISTORICAL-ANALOGY-v1

Historical analogy under structural fit

For arguments that draw a present conclusion from a past episode — "this is just like 1929," "the printing press all over again," "Munich in 1938." Scores how well the analogy actually fits.

Status canonical Criteria 3 (weighted 40/30/30) Updated January 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s conclusion about the present rests primarily on a comparison to a specific past episode — an empire’s collapse, a market crash, a technological transition, a war. The disagreement turns on whether the past episode actually predicts the present.

Not appropriate when: the past case is offered as one supporting example among many (use whichever rubric matches the underlying claim), or when the comparison is to a precedent in a legal sense (use STATUTORY-INTERP or CONSTITUTIONAL-STRUCTURE).

Criteria

1. Structural fit between past and present

weight 40%

Are the load-bearing features that drove the outcome in the past case actually present in the present case?

10Identifies the causal mechanism that produced the past outcome and shows that the same mechanism is present today. 7Shows surface similarities; the underlying mechanism is plausibly similar but not directly demonstrated. 4The analogy works at the level of vibes — same mood, same anxiety — but the actual causal structure is different. 1The two cases share only superficial features (both involved technology, both involved markets); the comparison adds no information.

2. Acknowledges disanalogies

weight 30%

Does the argument name the obvious differences between past and present, and explain why they don’t break the comparison?

10Names the strongest disanalogies and addresses each — either showing they don’t affect the load-bearing mechanism or conceding the comparison’s limits. 7Acknowledges one major disanalogy; ignores another that’s clearly relevant. 4Treats the analogy as if it were complete; doesn’t engage differences. 1Asserts the analogy is "exact" or "obvious" when the differences are dispositive.

3. Logical inference from past to present

weight 30%

Even if the analogy fits, does the conclusion drawn for the present actually follow?

10The past outcome plus the structural fit yields the conclusion; the inferential step is explicit. 7The inference is plausible but skips a step; an unstated premise does material work. 4The conclusion is broader than the analogy supports — e.g., generalizes one episode into a universal law. 1The past episode is invoked rhetorically; the actual conclusion doesn’t depend on it.

Version history

v1January 2026 · initial publication after the printing-press / dotcom AI thread surfaced the need for a rubric specifically for analogical reasoning