A question on analogies and examples

[luckyme]

Carder, a new poster commented to someone in another thread -

" Your analogy is obviously false. "

My experience from doing a lot of explanations to small groups ( on a variety of topics) is that using an analogy with certain types of people is a good way to disrupt the discussion and it rarely does aid their comprehension.
They treat an analogy as if it is a claim of equivalence as the above comment indicates rather than the role analogies play in an exchange of ideas -
- pointing to certain areas of a topic.
- giving a general form to the topic.
- acting as an intuition pump to stimulate a different way of looking at a topic.
- exposing the type of steps ( but not the exact ones) that could be taken through a topic.
- etc.

I used to get drop-jawed when somebody would say about an analogy "that's not the same thing, horses can't sing". The ".. the analogy is false" comment stirred up horrid little memories of the days I'd slip and use an analogy with a black-white person. They are the majority of the population, too.

Analogies are not a true/false tool, they are a useful/notuseful tool. They can be quite wacky as long as they do the job.

I posted something a while back and asked for 'no examples'. That is part of the same experience with black-white people. Use an example of a concept and you may spend the rest of the day discussing/arguing about the example rather than the overall concept. Unlike analogies, examples should fit into the concept, the problem arises when people think they are the concept or that they stand for the entire concept.

This forum is a nice study in both those experiences and sometimes I read the posts just to
wallow in the murky currents of example and analogy waves of misunderstanding.

Do I claim too much distance from the actual in my approach to either of those issues ??

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Analogies are not a true/false tool, they are a useful/notuseful tool. They can be quite wacky as long as they do the job.

[/ QUOTE ] Well yes analogies are better described as useful/not useful. But a false analogy is not usefull. I don't understand the black-white people. I think It's just out of context for me as I didn't read the original post.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Analogies are not a true/false tool, they are a useful/notuseful tool. They can be quite wacky as long as they do the job.

[/ QUOTE ] Well yes analogies are better described as useful/not useful. But a false analogy is not usefull. I don't understand the black-white people. I think It's just out of context for me as I didn't read the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people are very 'factual' or literal and see things in a "you're either for me or against me". Others tend to a think more abstractly, in terms of concepts. They often have communication problems. Their use and reaction to analogies and examples is a typical problem area.

I was checking to see if I wasn't being too biased to my own treatment of analogies and that there really was such a thing as a 'true analogy'. Examples can raise a related but different problem, the mixup of the specific with the general as I noted in the OP.

hope that's a bit clearer, thanks, luckyme

[Borodog]

The point of an analogy is similarity, perhaps akin to the mathematical sense. An analogous situation is one that has:

1) Similar premises,
2) Similar logical steps toward analysis and understanding, and therefore,
3) Similar logical conclusions.

The trick of course is to restrict the use of the analogy to the facets of the two sitatution where 1 & 2 are actually true. There will of course be facets that are not similar, and logical conclusions drawn from those will not be analogous between the two.

The main problem with argument by analogy, which is an incredibly powerful tool when used in a discussion with someone who has an open mind, is that against people without open minds, they simply deny the similarity of premises in order to refute the similarity of conclusion.

The best example on these boards are the arguments of pvn:

"I have some hot dogs. You need to eat to survive. I declare myself the local food monopolist and compel you to buy my hot dogs for $100 apiece. It's for your own good; you just said you need to eat to survive. If you don't like the deal, you are free to move to Antarctica."

This argument is completely analogous to the current situation of government provided "public goods" and the universal "love it or leave it" response to criticisms of such systems.

But the statist (and they will probably jump in to respond in this manner to this very post) will simply deny the similarity of the situations. They will wave their hands and make some obfuscations to the effect that coercion isn't always coercion. They essentially have to do this, because they don't like the similarity of conclusion; if me compelling you to buy my hot dogs at $100 apiece is bad, then someone else compelling you to buy public schooling at $15,000 per year per unit is bad, for exactly analogous reasons.

The actual way for the statist to defeat this argument is simple; simply concede that the analogy is correct, but claim that coercion is often necessary; specifically whenever the statist claims it is.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
They treat an analogy as if it is a claim of equivalence

[/ QUOTE ] It appears sometimes that peole making analogies also treat it as a claim of equivalence.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
....for exactly analogous reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

( not commenting on the example here, but thanks). You seem to use a much stronger brand of analogy than I do, or I'm overreading it.
Is there such a thing s 'exactly analogous' ? and/or "analogous reasons"?
Can we ever prove anything by analogy? It seems not, because if situation A is identiical to situation B then it's not an analogy it IS situation B. Analogies have aspects that aren't bang on, sometimes miss all aspects of a situation but one specific one you are trying to point out. That doesn't allow us to drag the rest of the characteristics of the analogy into the claims of the actual situation.

"she's like my wife, a good cook but not a fancy one"
" You sleep with her?!!"

lucyme

[Borodog]

Proof by analogy is n0ot the point, I think. The purpose of the analogy is to clarify the original argument via a clearer analgous scenario.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Proof by analogy is n0ot the point, I think. The purpose of the analogy is to clarify the original argument via a clearer analgous scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks boro. Yes, it is this clarifying or highlighting role, among others that i see analogies playing and why I prefer useful/nonuseful to 'true' or 'false' as a judgment on an analogy.

We read many arguments on here that are "well, if you think X is true, then you must think Y is true" yet there is usually no valid claim to that leap. It's a bit like the butterfly wings and the weather, small changes in variables can matter, even in analogies that have a lot of direct similarities.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is this clarifying or highlighting role, among others that i see analogies playing and why I prefer useful/nonuseful to 'true' or 'false' as a judgment on an analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also could consider the fact that analogies can simplify concepts and bring it into a frame of reference that is easier to access.

[Carded]

Ah, yes. Many of you have been greatly abusing the purpose of Analogy in argumentation and fail to see why his/her analogy is fallacious.

False Analogy

This is the fallacy of reasoning from an analogy in which irrelevant features in which two things have in common are taken as the basis for an inference that they are alike in some additional respect. To recognize this fallacy look for an argument in which the arguer reaches a conclusion about something on the basis of some irrelevant resemblance it has to something else. The fallacy occurs because two things, which are alike in some respects, are not necessarily alike in all respects.

Basic structure. A and B are alike in respects X and Y, and A is Z. Hence, B is Z.

[Carded]

Examples from http://skepdic.com/falseanalogy.html

more false analogies

To support a belief in the homeopathic law of similars (like cures like), Dana Ullman, an advisory board member of alternative-medicine institutes at Harvard's and Columbia's schools of medicine, argues that the human body reacts to medicines the way a piano string reacts to the vibrating string of another piano:

If one piano is at one end of a room and if one strikes the C key, the C notes in another piano in the same room will reverberate. This experiment works because each key is hypersensitive to vibrations in its own key. This is called 'resonance.'

It is also called a false analogy. The human body shares almost nothing in common with a piano string, and reverberation is unlike anything in the body's natural healing system. The analogy may make sense to Ullman because of acceptance of the notion that homeopathy is a type of "energy medicine." Disease is caused by blockage of energy and health is restored when the energy flows freely.

Ullman provides another false analogy by comparing the infinitesimal amounts—sometimes equaling zero—of homeopathic substances to tiny atoms containing vast amounts of energy.

There are many phenomena in nature in which extremely small doses of something can create powerful, even very powerful, effects....One certainly cannot say that the atomic bomb is a placebo just because some extremely small atoms bump into each other.

From this he concludes that we shouldn't dismiss the successes of homeopathy to the placebo effect. It is not relevant to compare the energy of no molecules (which is often what remains of the "active" substance in a homeopathic remedy) to the energy in atoms. If there are any molecules of the "active" substance left after dilution, they have as much energy as their atoms possess, no more and no less.

Here's a false analogy from Jerry Falwell:

Just as no person may scream ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and find cover under the First Amendment, likewise, no sleazy merchant like Larry Flynt [publisher of Hustler magazine which had been sued by Falwell] should be able use the First Amendment as an excuse for maliciously and dishonestly attacking public figures, as he has so often done.

There are so few similarities between yelling Fire! in a crowded theater and writing "malicious stuff" in a pornographic magazine that it is pointless to evaluate this kind of comparison in any detail. (This reasoning also begs the question. It assumes that the "malicious writings" are of "such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.")

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy occurs because two things, which are alike in some respects, are not necessarily alike in all respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this area earlier - if two things are alike in all respects it's not an analogy, it's talking about the same thing.

By that definition, all analogies are false. My point is that they all are and should be since their role isn't to prove anything ( they can't) but to aid in comprehension. they shouldn't be looked at as 'true' or 'false'. It's like staining a slide in a bio class, they can accent the parts you're looking at.

An analogy doesn't act as an equal sign, it acts as a highlighter or underscore or framing guide or idea stimulator or viewpoint suggestion.

luckyme

[Carded]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy occurs because two things, which are alike in some respects, are not necessarily alike in all respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this area earlier - if two things are alike in all respects it's not an analogy, it's talking about the same thing.

By that definition, all analogies are false. My point is that they all are and should be since their role isn't to prove anything ( they can't) but to aid in comprehension. they shouldn't be looked at as 'true' or 'false'. It's like staining a slide in a bio class, they can accent the parts you're looking at.

An analogy doesn't act as an equal sign, it acts as a highlighter or underscore or framing guide or idea stimulator or viewpoint suggestion.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then perhapse your analogies are best suited for news, views, and gossip. This is a form geared toward science, math, and Philosophy. True or False, 1 or 0 is what this form is geared towards.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then perhapse your analogies are best suited for news, views, and gossip. This is a form geared toward science, math, and Philosophy. True or False, 1 or 0 is what this form is geared towards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll waken plato and tell him to retract his cave nonsense. and einstein and his silly 'riding a light beam'.

You're missing the whole point of analogies, expecting them to do something they are incapable of delivering.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well then perhapse your analogies are best suited for news, views, and gossip. This is a form geared toward science, math, and Philosophy. True or False, 1 or 0 is what this form is geared towards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll waken plato and tell him to retract his cave nonsense. and einstein and his silly 'riding a light beam'.

You're missing the whole point of analogies, expecting them to do something they are incapable of delivering.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention using horribly inapt metaphors (I won't call them analogies) to do so. If you really feel that this forum is about true/false, 1/0 dichotomies, you don't read it much.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy occurs because two things, which are alike in some respects, are not necessarily alike in all respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this area earlier - if two things are alike in all respects it's not an analogy, it's talking about the same thing.

By that definition, all analogies are false. My point is that they all are and should be since their role isn't to prove anything ( they can't) but to aid in comprehension. they shouldn't be looked at as 'true' or 'false'. It's like staining a slide in a bio class, they can accent the parts you're looking at.

An analogy doesn't act as an equal sign, it acts as a highlighter or underscore or framing guide or idea stimulator or viewpoint suggestion.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all analogies are false by this definition. A good analogy is one in which the things that A and B have in common is a good basis for inferring that they have some further thing in common. A bad/false analogy is one in which the things that A and B have in common is irrelevant to inferring whether or not they have some further thing in common.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fallacy occurs because two things, which are alike in some respects, are not necessarily alike in all respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this area earlier - if two things are alike in all respects it's not an analogy, it's talking about the same thing.

By that definition, all analogies are false. My point is that they all are and should be since their role isn't to prove anything ( they can't) but to aid in comprehension. they shouldn't be looked at as 'true' or 'false'. It's like staining a slide in a bio class, they can accent the parts you're looking at.

An analogy doesn't act as an equal sign, it acts as a highlighter or underscore or framing guide or idea stimulator or viewpoint suggestion.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all analogies are false by this definition. A good analogy is one in which the things that A and B have in common is a good basis for inferring that they have some further thing in common. A bad/false analogy is one in which the things that A and B have in common is irrelevant to inferring whether or not they have some further thing in common.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem comes when people find it far easier to simply state, by fiat, that the analogy belongs to the latter, rather than be forced to confront the arguments in a new way.

[DougShrapnel]

Analogies are more useful when the parties have a good understanding of the analogious nomenclature and working there of. I don't know if thier are actual terms to make this distiction. But I think it's helpful to judge the analogy to look at if it goes from broad to specific or the other way around.

Laymen analogies, the type of analogy that uses common knowledge to express the advanced ideas contained by the author are usually less usefull, but appeal to a broader audience. These type of analogies need to be thrown out once one wishes to get to the meat of the matter. For instance the brain is like a copmuter, gives you a really bad notion of cognitive science.

Nomencalture analogies, use a particular idea from an unrealated field and are often very useful but very limited audiance wise. For instance your staining a slide example is very useful way to describe the purpose of analogy, but it is limited to only people that have an understanding of biology and not analogy.

But then again I play loose and fast with analogies.