3 ms·
Who is saying that the analogously named models are equivalent the analogs themselves? Analogous terminology and metaphors exist so that people can ease themsel
by farmerjack 12y ago
Who is saying that the analogously named models are equivalent the analogs themselves? Analogous terminology and metaphors exist so that people can ease themselves into a deeper understanding of a subject. I agree that some people can incorrectly draw grand conclusions from a simple name, but that doesn't mean the people who use these "things" with these "names" only understand their mechanisms on a superficial level. Seriously, good luck explaining any model without introducing an analog that we, as humans, can relate with.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoSure, I'm not saying analogies are the problem. They're not, we need them, they're important parts of our cognition. My point was twofold: a/ beware inference from surface analogies, always strive to understand where the border between similar and different properties lie, and b/ it does happen. People do draw conclusions and build their understanding on superficial analogies in a systematic way. That's why I mentioned the anecdote of CS students I know. I've seen it in real life. Also known as cargo-culting, it's unfortunately not a rare phenomenon. Also, I'm not the CDDDDARP ((cddddar this-comment)-poster), but I hazard a guess that he "felt sort of foolish" because he discovered he accidentally did some inferring from surface analogies and ended up disappointed.
- jfoutz 12y agoExactly that. I inferred from surface analogies and was disappointed.