Why Analogies Suck (2012)

A less clickbaity title would be "Don't base your arguments on analogies".

I agree with the premise put forth in part one: analogies are better for illustration than for argument.

In parts 2 and 3 they use two examples of bad analogies which I think aren't very good. They are both moral issues. In both cases, the counterargument is that the issue used in the analogue is too morally different from the original issue. But to the people in both examples they used that analogy because they think it they are morally comparable.

Jimmy likely thinks that smoking extra pot is about the same as eating icecream. That's probably why he chose the analogy. I imagine it is similar for the comparison between drug use and pregnancy out of wedlock. The OP's argument relies on everybody thinking everybody has similar moral values to themself.

It would have been better to stick to the ethernet vs road system analogy and used it to demonstrate his points in parts 2 and 3.

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).

Yeah, they do suck. I also hate when someone uses an analogy to prove something... then someone else with opposite point of view tries to fix his opponent's argument and a thread ensues, which has two people discussing and refining a subject which is completely unrelated to initial question.

And also hate when people compare digital stuff to physical. Why the fuck are you comparing a linux kernel to a car...

That's not true. It's like saying that... oh well, never mind

I reserve analogies for criminals that refuse to make arguments formally in a court of law, with lawyers. That is, it's a continual bedtime story dialogue until there's enough evidence to press charges and force them into a courtroom. Then all "analogies" go away.

The author seems to have a problem with drug users.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

Analogies, like other points of communication, have their place. As mentioned, in illustration.

Which is why they come into arguments. Because one person feels the other doesn't understand something and wants to "illustrate their point".

Sometimes:

- the opposition is arguing in good faith

- "understanding" is the issue

- the analogy is good and taken only for the point it was trying to illustrate

But not often.