There is a Japanese researcher of psychology known as a pinoeer of a research field in Japan. He studied it in the U. S., where the field had already developed. So he wrote am introductory book in Japanese about that field. As psychology is deeply related to philosophy, there are several parts where he touches on philosophical issues. They display how unphilosophical psychologists can be even when they are trying to be so. For example, he says about the word analogy that it can be etymologically analysed as made up of two elements: ana- and logy. So far, so good. But he goes on to say that the first element means practically "not" and so the word etymologically means "being not logical." He thus dismisses this type of induction as unreliable. The truth is, according to a dictionary of English etymology, the first element means "to follow" and the second, "ratio." The word originally means "following the same ratio." So this type of inferrence cannot be regarded as unreliable solely on its etymology. Indeed, there are many cases in the history of philosophy where analogy was effectively implemented and led to am argument cogent at least to some people for some time.