3 ms·

I'd like to try to change your mind on analogies, and even without analogies (although I _will_ use an example)! Analogies are an attempt to generalize an argu

I'd like to try to change your mind on analogies, and even without analogies (although I _will_ use an example)! Analogies are an attempt to generalize an argument. Say we are trying to prove that "It will rain" is a valid conclusion from "If it is cloudy it will rain and it is cloudy". We can generalize this to "A -> B" & "B" -> "B", which you will recognize as an application of modus ponens from formal logic. Analogies try to use this power on fuzzier topics. A normative principle like "We should build a new post office" are so abstract that they cannot be tackled head on (try defining "should" in the comments section and having no one point out a flaw to see why this is difficult). Because of this, we try to make comparison to other, seemingly similar, cases in an attempt to draw out the underlying logical structure. Because of this, I think they are a powerful and useful argumentative strategy.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
I agree that analogies are useful to illustrate (in some scenarios), but I would not use them to support my argument (outside of a discrete math course). If I were to argue that Apple's app store policies were harmful, then I would do just that. I would define terms, define the parties involved, show the harm and to which parties, maybe provide some examples, show which laws it violates, and maybe suggest solutions. But I don't see why involving Cheerios at a brick and mortar retail store would help clear anything up.
aurbano 6y ago
I think the main point against analogies is when they are used as proof for the situation they are being compared to. I'm not versed in formal logic, but I believe it would be: "A -> B", and I want to prove that "C -> D" So I make the analogy that "A is similar to C, and B to D in some ways" thus then C -> D" A lot of people will take this as a valid proof. But it has yet to be proven that A and C, and B and D are actually interchangeable. Edit: To refer this back to the original argument, saying that the AppStore is like a brick and mortar store, and Cheerios is like Epic games is a nice analogy, but it can't possibly prove anything because they are just not the same thing. What they may do though, is potentially align the reader's point of view with the writer's, but not necessarily towards the _right_ point of view, assuming there is one.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

I agree that analogies are useful to illustrate (in some scenarios), but I would not use them to support my argument (outside of a discrete math course). If I were to argue that Apple's app store policies were harmful, then I would do just that. I would define terms, define the parties involved, show the harm and to which parties, maybe provide some examples, show which laws it violates, and maybe suggest solutions. But I don't see why involving Cheerios at a brick and mortar retail store would help clear anything up.

aurbano 6y ago

I think the main point against analogies is when they are used as proof for the situation they are being compared to. I'm not versed in formal logic, but I believe it would be: "A -> B", and I want to prove that "C -> D" So I make the analogy that "A is similar to C, and B to D in some ways" thus then C -> D" A lot of people will take this as a valid proof. But it has yet to be proven that A and C, and B and D are actually interchangeable. Edit: To refer this back to the original argument, saying that the AppStore is like a brick and mortar store, and Cheerios is like Epic games is a nice analogy, but it can't possibly prove anything because they are just not the same thing. What they may do though, is potentially align the reader's point of view with the writer's, but not necessarily towards the _right_ point of view, assuming there is one.