3 ms·

Yes, I have analogies but the very definition of an analogy precludes it being the thing it analogizes. ... How is gravitational force produced? Is it associa

Yes, I have analogies but the very definition of an analogy precludes it being the thing it analogizes. ... How is gravitational force produced? Is it associated with an elementary particle, a graviton? You seem to suggest that analogies get in the way of real understanding. But I think at the root of understanding (as opposed to just proving empirically) is a set of nested analogies at an increasing level of detail. For example, if we knew that gravity was caused by say, gravitons, our understanding would be little more than a set of analogies about the gravitons (but ones that have been made rigorous and proven empirically).

shawndumas 16y ago
If I gave the impression that good analogies are anything other than a good thing then I apologize. A good analogy can be crucial to understanding. But understanding an analogy in and of itself is not the same thing as understanding the thing analogized. At some point demonstrating the ability to move beyond analogy to explaining the real thing is necessary. In other words using an analogy to augment an actual explanation is one thing; substituting an analogy for an explanation is another. It's actually an argumentative fallacy and has a name; 'Retroductive Analogy' (Retroductive as opposed to Inductive, or Deductive.) Some more info: "This fallacy derives from the retroductive or abductive form of reasoning described by Charles Sanders Peirce. According to Peirce’s account, retroduction can provide good reasons to pursue a hypothesis but does not, by itself, provide good reasons to believe the hypothesis. In successful applications of retroduction, pursuit leads to the accumulation of evidence. In retroductive analogy, comparison with other successful hypotheses is substituted for the genuine pursuit of evidence."[1] [1]: http://www.springerlink.com/content/57557324753u6881/fulltext.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/57557324753u6881/fulltex...

shawndumas 16y ago

If I gave the impression that good analogies are anything other than a good thing then I apologize. A good analogy can be crucial to understanding. But understanding an analogy in and of itself is not the same thing as understanding the thing analogized. At some point demonstrating the ability to move beyond analogy to explaining the real thing is necessary. In other words using an analogy to augment an actual explanation is one thing; substituting an analogy for an explanation is another. It's actually an argumentative fallacy and has a name; 'Retroductive Analogy' (Retroductive as opposed to Inductive, or Deductive.) Some more info: "This fallacy derives from the retroductive or abductive form of reasoning described by Charles Sanders Peirce. According to Peirce’s account, retroduction can provide good reasons to pursue a hypothesis but does not, by itself, provide good reasons to believe the hypothesis. In successful applications of retroduction, pursuit leads to the accumulation of evidence. In retroductive analogy, comparison with other successful hypotheses is substituted for the genuine pursuit of evidence."[1] [1]: http://www.springerlink.com/content/57557324753u6881/fulltext.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/57557324753u6881/fulltex...