3 ms·

I've been trying to convey this point for a long time. Say, you want to argue that X is true. You say that it is analogous to Y. Now you have to to argue why

I've been trying to convey this point for a long time. Say, you want to argue that X is true. You say that it is analogous to Y. Now you have to to argue why Y is a good analogy for Y for me to consider it, and nobody ever seems to do that. In particular, one would have to demonstrate that differences between the two things being compared do not affect anything as far as the argument is concerned. That is usually harder to do than arguing why you feel X is true in in the first place. In mathematics, if you want to say that X has the same property as Y because they are similar in some way, you have to prove that the similarity you have in mind exists AND preserves that property (i.e. it's a homomorphism). But in speech, people never do the latter (i.e. consider the limits of the analogy).

karmakaze 6y ago
Analogies are used to communicate an aspect rather than a proof. If the other person sees the aspect that the analogy is magnifying and the significance in the original, then they can both get to work on proofing it or using it rather than debating. While everything in the post seems true to me, I don't reach the conclusion that analogies suck. If I'm trying to convince a person, I want to show them a way of thinking which is served well with analogies and illustrations, etc. If the person is trying to not understand and requires a proof then yes, analogies will not help you, and also you are wasting your time with this person, move on.