The limits of analogies

[Nearly Sane]

Quite often on here we see people use argument by analogy - if something is like another things in one way we can infer that it is like it in others. I had been going to write a post about the problems of that but in looking to add a link to the overall idea I found this ready made blog post making the point.


https://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/07/argument-by-ana.html

[ekim]

I don't think it is wise to argue by analogy as analogy has its limitations.  As I see it, analogy comes under the broad heading of mythos which includes allegory, parable, metaphor, simile, moral, fable, and which are not intended to convey factual assessments but more to convey an experience or idea that one person has had, in a way that an another who has not had that experience or idea might understand by similarity.  The Kingdom of Heaven is like a raising agent which although is hidden in flour causes the whole to rise,  the 'Big Bang' Theory, 'String' Theory, the 'Big Woo' theory might be examples.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it is wise to argue by analogy as analogy has its limitations.  As I see it, analogy comes under the broad heading of mythos which includes allegory, parable, metaphor, simile, moral, fable, and which are not intended to convey factual assessments but more to convey an experience or idea that one person has had, in a way that an another who has not had that experience or idea might understand by similarity.  The Kingdom of Heaven is like a raising agent which although is hidden in flour causes the whole to rise,  the 'Big Bang' Theory, 'String' Theory, the 'Big Woo' theory might be examples.

And yet people often do, which is the point I was making. I also think analogy is better when it's about trying to get people how you see things, rather than personal experiences.

[Nearly Sane]

There's also a reverse argument by analogy, where someone makes an analogy to show where they see issues in a position, and the reply is made but the analogy isn't exactly like the case it is being compared to, despite that not being the intention. Little green Irish supernatural creatures come to mind for this.

[ekim]

Ah, yes, the straw man analogy.  Analogous language seems to have reached a ceiling these days with words like absolutely fabulous, unbelievably brilliant, out of this world, mind boggling, being used so much as to devalue them. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I don't think it is wise to argue by analogy as analogy has its limitations.  As I see it, analogy comes under the broad heading of mythos which includes allegory, parable, metaphor, simile, moral, fable, and which are not intended to convey factual assessments but more to convey an experience or idea that one person has had, in a way that an another who has not had that experience or idea might understand by similarity.  The Kingdom of Heaven is like a raising agent which although is hidden in flour causes the whole to rise,  the 'Big Bang' Theory, 'String' Theory, the 'Big Woo' theory might be examples.

For some uses of analogy perhaps, but not for others. The blog references Russell's teapot for example - it falsifies the argument, "you can't disprove X, therefore X is true" by pointing out that the same could be said of an orbiting teapot - which is an analogy that isn't limited even though the characteristics of the object are different. That's where dear old Vlad (late of this parish - what happened to him by the way?) always went wrong - he'd focus on the different characteristics of leprechauns to his god as if that was in some way relevant to the basic argument.         

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, it's an illustration of our tendency to inductive thought, which on a day to day basis is a powerful tool. Oddly enough this connects to the idea about overstating similarities in inner experiences that we've just been mentioning in the Secular Spirituality thread.