> [T]he utility of a formal system lies in the way it's elements and rules map to some world context.
To some [specific] world context, yes, but not to any world context.
Reasoning from analogy posits that the inverse is true: We can choose an outcome, then use a series of analogies to connect the evidence we have at hand to that outcome. This series of analogies is then codified into “knowledge”.
For a humorous take on this look no further than the witch trial scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions.
The python reference indicates you imply a form of fallacious reasoning which the general "argument by analogy" isn't. The below is a good example I found though -
"There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head: two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth...From this and many other similarities in Nature, too tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets must necessarily be seven."
– Francesco Sizzi, 17th-century Italian astronomer
To some [specific] world context, yes, but not to any world context.
Reasoning from analogy posits that the inverse is true: We can choose an outcome, then use a series of analogies to connect the evidence we have at hand to that outcome. This series of analogies is then codified into “knowledge”.
For a humorous take on this look no further than the witch trial scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.