[clug] On Analogy, was: Re: [OT] Bjarne Stroustrop on [SEC=PERSONAL]

[Steve McInerney]

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 10:50 +1000, Roppola, Antti wrote:
> Also remember that while analogies and parallels are useful for
> exploring a problem, the analogy is not the same as the the problem.

Spot on.

Arguing via analogy is an old trick in the "methods of dirty arguing"
arsenal.

Analogy should only used to provide illumination to a topic that may be
unfamiliar to all/some participants.
When analogy is used as THE basis of "why I am right and you are wrong"
in an argument; walk away. You're now in an "I am arguing to win"
situation. No longer in an arguing to bring illumination, understanding
and/or persuasion situation.

Or: The argument will devolve off the original topic and onto whether
the analogy is correct. helloooo bus shelter. Also a walk away
situation, as again, folks are arguing solely for an argument/therapy
session. A'la the Monty Python argument sketch.


The above reasons are additionals as to why I find the original article
to this thread unpersuasive. That article tries to use analogy to argue
the case - implying that the actual points for the case put forward,
aren't strong enough to stand alone without restoring to *cough* dirty
tricks.


I strongly recommend to you all:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
as mandatory reading. Albeit very *dry* reading. :-)


Cheers!
- Steve