An analogy isn't a proof. When someone uses an analogy they're not trying to prove anything, they're trying to get you to see things from a specific perspectiv

An analogy isn't a proof. When someone uses an analogy they're not trying to prove anything, they're trying to get you to see things from a specific perspective, or they're trying to communicate an idea. You can still walk away from the analogy and disagree with them, but you should have a better understanding of their perspective or their argument. > Do you disagree that using an analogy is oversimplification? I think your entire approach to analogies is unnecessarily combative. You view an analogy as someone trying to prove something rather than trying to communicate their position better (or just an idea in general). And your approach is to point out that the analogy isn't perfect, and therefore you've "disproved" the analogy. Only analogies are, by their very nature, imperfect. When an analogy is perfect it ceases to be an analogy and becomes the thing being discussed. It should automatically be understood that there are the analogy isn't perfect and anyone can find flaws in it. That doesn't mean it isn't an effective way to communicate.