Reasoning by analogy is akin to modeling. A model is presumed to capture a sufficient number of principal components that by permuting those, you can usefully

Reasoning by analogy is akin to modeling. A model is presumed to capture a sufficient number of principal components that by permuting those, you can usefully predict the behavior of the target system. That said, I agree with you. IMO, systems that can't be factored into quantifiable components can't be modeled accurately -- i.e. analogies. Like the field of economics, where too often, analogies that are based qualitatively on only one or two factors are often proposed as sufficient to explain the behavior of diverse international economies, IMO analogies have proven to be insufficient bases for larger theories. Same goes for philosophy and science. Analogistic thinking too often leads down garden paths. Too untestable.