  Analogy has received attention as a form of inductive reasoning in the
empirical sciences. However, its role in pure mathematics has received less
consideration. This paper provides an account of how an analogy with a more
familiar mathematical domain can contribute to the confirmation of a
mathematical conjecture. By reference to case-studies, we propose a distinction
between an incremental and a non-incremental form of confirmation by
mathematical analogy. We offer an account of the former within the popular
framework of Bayesian confirmation theory. As for the non-incremental notion,
we defend its role in rationally informing the prior credences of
mathematicians in those circumstances in which no new mathematical evidence is
introduced. The resulting 'hybrid' framework captures many important aspects of
the use of analogical inference in the realm of pure mathematics.
