Current Events > After all this time, CE still doesn't understand or it hates analogies

(+) Yeah! (+)

You will see over and over CEmen say "omg your analogy doesn't work because the things you compared aren't exactly the same!"

This shows a poor understanding of what an analogy is. Let us learn together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2][3] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1][2][3]

P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
P has been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

The argument does not assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The argument may provide us with good evidence for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of logical necessity.[1][2][3] Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the form: the content must also come under scrutiny.

Now, it is possible for an analogy to be invalidated if there is lack of similarities, BUT you must keep in mind that if two scenarios share several similarities they CAN and SHOULD have many differences... it is still very very valid.

Why?

The argument does not assert that the two things are identical

To give an example:

Dave eats and apple, the apple is rotten, dave gets sick

analogy

Jenny eats an orange, the orange is rotten, Jenny dies.

Most often CE would say this analogy is invalid because there is a huge difference between being sick and dying.

However, that is not how analogies work.

We find both of these share similarities enough to make them a valid comparison:

a: A person (dave and jenny)

b: they eat

c: a fruit

Infact, the purpose of an anology is to test something and to see how it changes depending on... the differences.

In this case the conclusion of dying versus sickness is likely the thing attempted to be found out.

Seriously dude, take a break from the internet. You fucking need it.

No one is gonna read this effort post of a wall. You need to learn how to keep things simple.

VeggetaX posted...

No one is gonna read this effort post of a wall. You need to learn how to keep things simple.

Considering CE doesn't understand analogies, I feel it is quite warranted

gunplagirl posted...

Considering CE doesn't understand analogies, I feel it is quite warranted

Sure it does but not with this much effort. It's like you're trying to explain something on youtube but the video is like 30 minutes long. Keep it simple and easy. People's attention span is hella short.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Let us take this into consideration.

The comparison:

Conflict posted... He isn't changing his tune though

It's not mutually exclusive to be aware that the law does allow the police to pull people over without explanation of reasonable suspicion, while also believing that the law is bulls*** and this cop was a piece of s***

So we want to compare two laws of which people disagree on principle with such laws.

Similarities:

a: law

b: disagree with said law

c: implied that despite disagreeing with the law, justify it because it is a law

d: not following law means jail and other penalties

e: large segment of society believes the law is bad and other half thinks it is good (or so that is said to be but probably not reality. law is likely mostly unpopular)

Scenario:

Dave disagrees that a cop can stop a man for no reason and ask for his ID, but he feels it is justified and the man should comply.

Jenny disagrees that woman should go to jail for seeking and abortion, but she feels it is justified and the women should comply and not seek one.

the differences:

complying to showing an id may seem benign in most circumstances

complying to not having an abortion could be life threatening

the assertion:

Because complying to an abortion can be life threatening, we discard all the similarities and the reason we are testing this scenario with an analogy and pretend it is invalid

but it is not invalidated because this is THE REASON people use analogies

we found two scenarios of similarity to find why a statement about complying to a law you disagree with is unfounded

and why is it unfounded? because of the difference

the difference is the key here and it shows why the principle cannot be applied to other scenarios of law

conclusion:
principle of complying with a law you think is bs is being cherry picked to apply only to specific laws and thus the principle itself is bullshit and should not be followed

ty analogies!

Anal Ogies

head hurts

Sir, Wendy's, etc.

One lives, the other one dies, I get it.

gunplagirl posted...

Considering CE doesn't understand analogies, I feel it is quite warranted

thanks!

and yes, it happens so often otherwise I would not have made this thread.

I did not make this because of Conflict's post but over many years CEman falsely saying this analogy is bad and that one is bad and on and on.
Most often the analogies are not bad but the CEman doesn't like that the analogy did its job very well.

WingsOfGood posted...

thanks!

and yes, it happens so often otherwise I would not have made this thread.

I did not make this because of Conflict's post but over many years CEman falsely saying this analogy is bad and that one is bad and on and on.
Most often the analogies are not bad but the CEman doesn't like that the analogy did its job very well.

How many people did you think you genuinely educated with this topic?

VeggetaX posted...

How many people did you think you genuinely educated with this topic?

If it was only you because I know you are super smart then I am thankful for making this thread.

Cheers

WingsOfGood posted...

If it was only you because I know you are super smart then I am thankful for making this thread.

Cheers

...but if he is super smart, wouldnt he already know how they work in the first place?

Foppe posted...

...but if he is super smart, wouldnt he already know how they work in the first place?

cheers

WingsOfGood posted...

If it was only you because I know you are super smart then I am thankful for making this thread.

Cheers

Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

VeggetaX posted...

Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

??
no

let's get along

I actually agree to some extent. I've gotten to the point where I try not to use analogies or metaphors at all, because people frequently derail the conversation by trying to pick the comparison itself apart, rather than focusing on the issue the comparison is intended to highlight. Whether people are genuinely confused, or whether their confusion is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic (this is often the case), it still amounts to wasted time and effort.

I'm not talking about CE though. This is something I've noticed that people will do in person. I suspect it's a general human thing.

Whats a meta for?

I am so confused.

TheOnionKnight posted...

I actually agree to some extent. I've gotten to the point where I try not to use analogies or metaphors at all, because people frequently derail the conversation by trying to pick the comparison itself apart, rather than focusing on the issue the comparison is intended to highlight. Whether people are genuinely confused, or whether their confusion is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic (this is often the case), it still amounts to wasted time and effort.

I'm not talking about CE though. This is something I've noticed that people will do in person. I suspect it's a general human thing.

I wonder where this all started?

Maybe people just where not taught logic in public schools?

k

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Also I have it on good authority that TC enjoys the smell of his own farts

TCs understanding of analogies is similar to Trumps understanding of how to run America