Thoughts About the Effectiveness of Analogies?

[Hosnon]

My thoughts on analogies and their use:

Inherent in the definition of an analogy is the absence of identity. For a person to compare a thing with itself yields nothing new. When an analogy is employed, the two things are, by definition, different.

As a result, analogies are immediately suspect as tools of argumentation.

The more closely that the characteristics being compared relate to the characteristics which form the basis of the analogy (the assumption being that they are equal), the more relevant and effective the analogy.

Thoughts?

[Dora]

1. I beg to differ.

Analogy and other tools of metaphor are essential to argument and understanding. The simple act of comparing A with B in no way dilutes the substance of A.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

The function of analogy is to bring the recipient's awareness of the similarity between those objects/subjects being compared. The issue of "difference" contributes to greater understanding as well, because we can often find as much meaning in what something is not, as in what it is.

Further, I'll assert that we depend on metaphorical tools in order to achieve learning by understanding, rather than rote memorization of facts.

[hfojvt]

3. really attempting to argue without analogies

is like trying to box with your hands tied behind your back.

[Hosnon]

8. Oh boy...I didn't anticipate the flood of witty DUers:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Well, speaking personally, I find analogies about as useful

as a bicycle for a fish, which is why I use them about as much as Ron Howard makes artistic films, because using them is as ignorant as Gilbert Grape's ma was fat. I avoid analogies like white trash avoid birth control.

[Hosnon]

11. Haha...eh ha...perhaps I should have looked twice before crossing this

street?:hide:

[Hosnon]

5. I don't doubt the effectiveness of analogy in understanding. What I do

try to point out is that there is a sliding scale of effectiveness.

Would you agree that analogies are inherently inaccurate?

I'm attempting to point out that comparisons can't simply be stated, the comparison itself must be justified. Given a glass of sweet tea and a glass of water: Both have many similar qualities but to describe the taste of water based on them would be inaccurate.

[Dora]

19. Ah, but we differ in our understanding of the function of analogy.

To you, an analogy equates one object with another. To me, an analogy is simply a comparison.

Of course, analogies and other figurative constructs can be accurate or inaccurate. I once aroused the venom of a women's poetry course because I said a Louise Gluck poem was an abject failure because the metaphor that carried her poem was impossible, thus inaccurate.

I can agree with you that analogies are inherently inaccurate as much you can agree that analogies are inherently accurate. IOW, I've been dabbling in Buddhist thought long enough to render myself unable to embrace one side of a dichotomy as true without acknowledging the other side as true as well.

I can say to you, "The planet Earth is like my body. If I do not take care of my body, I could weaken and die. Likewise, if we do not take care of the earth, it could weaken and die."

Would you say that this is an inaccurate analogy? After all, I am small, the Earth is comparatively huge. But the common factor of well-being is the truth that ties these two seemingly disparate objects: my body and the Earth. The argument depends on the similarity. Analogy as a tool of argument fails only when the differences between A and B eliminate the similarities.

And the tea... The tea, it is cold, and it is wet, its taste is pleasant. It is like a glass of water, but a glass of water is different. A glass of water is cold, and it is wet, its taste is pleasant. Nothing at all like a glass of tea.

[Hosnon]

23. You misunderstand. To me, an analogy equates attributes in two things and

then attempts to equate other attributes based on the initial similarity.

You have reached the point of my post: The effectiveness of an analogy depends upon the similarity between the two sets of characteristics. As that similarity increases, the effectiveness of the similary increases.

Regarding the tea and water: Sweetness is obviously the main distinction. Both are pleasent but only one is sweet. One cannot describe the sweetness of tea by analogizing it with water.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. An analogy does not equate - it only uses similarity to make a point.

But there is nothing in an analogy trying to say "this is EQUAL to that". Only,"This is LIKE that" or "this is SIMILAR to that".

[Hosnon]

28. I disagree. To analogize, there must be ONE attribute that is similar

between the two things being compared - if not, the analogy would never work.

Vietnam/Iraq = Both wars

Water/Tea = Both liquids

Etc.

There must be a common similarity for an analogy to be relevant.

[kwassa]

31. The problem is that many use them as PROOF, rather than ...

explanations.

An analogy is not proof. Some here don't understand that.

[Hosnon]

34. I agree. An original observation in my OP is that to be proofs, one must

be describing a thing with itself...otherwise there are inherent inaccuracies.

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. DId I not say similar? Yes, I did. I was saying that an analogy

does NOT attempt to imply that two things are EQUAL.

Only similar.

You did read my post, didn't you?

[Hosnon]

35. No need to get testy:) And thank you, you have helped me realize another

aspect of the concept of analogies.

They work best when the original attributes are equal and the secondary attributes are equal (identity principle).

Their use declines when the original attributes are equal but the secondary attributes are not.

Their use further declines when both the original and secondary attributes are not equal.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. You're still tossing around equal and similar haphazardly.

And I don't think that there need be any direct correlation between the things being compared - that's why analogy is such a powerful tool.


"Your majesty is like a stream of bat piss" - you would probably say that fails as an analogy because the king is not equal to piss. But as the analogy was explained, the king is like a stream of bat piss because when all is dark, he stands out like a ray of sunshine.

[Hosnon]

44. No I'm not...I incorporated that into my thoughts. Edit:

And for your King/Bat Piss analogy:

I would not disagree. My entire point was that the effectiveness of analogies depends upon the relation between characteristics - which can be proven by the analogizer.

Edit again: I don't like to yell...

[Rabrrrrrr]

49. Yes you are.

The whole point of analogy is using similarities, not equalities; to try to eplain one thing through the use of another, similar, but not necessarily equal, thing.

I just really don't see your point here.

Analogy is one of our most very powerful tools in communication, pedagogy, argument, and debate that has been ever been invented.

I'm not sure why you are trying to hammer it into such a small hole, and speaking so oddly about it.

[Hosnon]

51. Did you not read my post a few posts back? I've updated my hierarachy.

My main point is that analogies are, by definition, incapable of providing truth and that the degree to which one can provide something close to truth depends upon certain criteria, stated before.

[Dora]

52. The entire function of analogy is to illuminate (or obscure) truth.

Denial of that demonstrates either ignorance of or disregard for the truth of what analogy and other figurative speech is. There is such a phenomenon as a false analogy and false metaphor: their function is to mislead.

Your insistence that analogy has no place in argument only demonstrates your lack of understanding. It appears that you're trying to argue something you don't quite get. I would no more try to argue the law than I would try to discuss the intricacies of brain surgery, but I can discuss issues of metaphor and meaning all night long.

"All night long." That's a figure of speech too, a phrase not meant literally but figuratively, but you know exactly what I mean, because you're wired to understand figurative speech.

Analogy ROCKS!

[Hosnon]

53. I am not insisting that analogy has no place in argument.

I'm not quite sure where you are getting that. I am, however, insisting that the proper use of analogy is not understood.

Edit: Not understood in that the analogy is more effective if the qualities that are trying to be equated to some degree or another are more closely related to those qualities that are similar or equal between the two things.

I think I understand the essence of analogy more than you think I do.

[Dora]

54. At least you think you understand, that's a good start. : )

It appears from your posts that might believe analogy doesn't have a "proper use."

[Hosnon]

55. Come now...the thread does not need to degrade into petty tit for tat. And

I do not believe that analogy does not have a "proper use."

Edit: However, as is the case with every tool, one must know how to use it.

[Dora]

57. Dude. "Proper use."

Your words. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5506726&mesg_id=5507144

I am, however, insisting that the proper use of analogy is not understood.

Nice tits, but I think I'm all out of tats. I'm just a post-drunk DUer ready to go home and cook dinner for the beloveds, taking on a last-minute argument re: figurative speech and its function in daily discourse. You now say you don't believe that analogy doesn't have a proper use (therefore analogy does have a proper use), yet you dismiss our myriad examples of analogy's importance and function.

You believe in what you're saying, but that doesn't make you right.

Ciao, darling. Twenty minutes till the bell, and I've got randomness to crank out of my office.

[Hosnon]

58. I do not understand what you mean. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding.

"It appears from your posts that might believe analogy doesn't have a 'proper use.'"

I'm not quite understanding your post. I don't believe that analogy doesn't have a proper use. I'm simply attempting to discuss the proper use of it - and everything has a function...and every function can be performed well.

What exactly are you getting at?

Edit: I say that I don't believe analogy doesn't have a proper use...that does not mean that any of your examples are that use. Come now...

[Dora]

61. Oh, my. What a difference four hours will make, eh?

I can't believe some of the intellectual vomitus I scattered in this thread. I don't understand half of what I said either.

I am sorry if I became too vehement in my ridiculousness. There were a couple of things I said that weren't entirely craptastic, but still, I beg you put this incident behind us.

[Dora]

50. Ahhhhhhh.....

Nothing like the urinary aroma of a well-constructed analogy drifting up from the fine crystal glass of a Lounge thread.

[Dora]

32. My tea is not sweet.

An analogy to describe sweetness would fail in that regard, yes. However, an analogy to describe a refreshing and cold liquid beverage would not. Liquid? check. Cold? check. Palatability? Check. Taste? Nope - that's reaching the level of "meaning" which is entirely dependent on the recipient.

[Hosnon]

38. Hmmm...sorry for the regional discrepenacy. How about Coke and Water?

[Hosnon]

6. Dupe

[Haole Girl]

2. Argument by analogy seldom works,

but that doesn't stop people from doing it-- constantly.

[Hosnon]

7. My point in posting is that I believe that the "workability" of an analogy

depends upon certain factors - which are seldom discussed.

[hfojvt]

14. why would we analogists

want the rest of the world to know our secrets? That would be like the time I was playing pinochle over lunch. Once I explained to the rest of the group how a thirty bid could easily be made if you have a family for meld it became alot harder to get bids.

[Hosnon]

17. Sigh...

Is it Friday or am I missing something?

[hfojvt]

26. For me

it is Saturday.

Or analogous to Saturday for somebody who works Thursday through Monday.

[hfojvt]

10. flat roofs don't seem to work either

but builders keep on using them.

An analogy is like a dictionary. People do not understand the original term, they cannot understand how B implies A, but if they are given a sports analogy and can then see how the two situations are similar then they can understand. Plus, if you know they hate, say the Chicago Bears, and you make an analogy which disparages the Bears, you can win them to your side by making them laugh.

[Hosnon]

13. The problem with that is that the person who offers A must have a working

knowledge of both A and B. The other person must trust that as well.

However, that is another coin.

I'm trying to point out that analogies within a system, perhaps with respect to one person, are inherently flawed and need to be justified in themselves.

[Dora]

27. No, they must have a working knowledge of one or the other.

A simplified example: My son is eighteen months old. He knows that the stove is hot, and that he's to stay away from it. He doesn't understand that mommy's coffee cup is hot too, and he's always grabbing at it.

So I explain to him that mommy's coffee cup is like the stove, it's hot, and he is to stay away from it. In many ways, my coffee cup is nothing at all like the stove, but in the relevant aspect - heat - it is like the stove. So, in this case, the analogy is an effective tool for persuasion and argument. What does my son do when he sees my cup? He says "hot, hot."

Last week when driving home we were stopped in traffic on the bridge over Town Lake. He was pointing down at the water and uh-uh-uh-ing like kids do. I said to him, "Baby, that's the lake. That's a lot of water down there. Agua: water. Do you see the water?" He looked at me, and pointed to his sippy cup full of water that was in the cup holder. "Agua," he said, then pointed out the window to the lake. "Agua," he said, looking at the lake. The sippy cup is not the lake, neither is the lake the sippy cup, but my son knows that water connects the two.

Analogy ROCKS!

[Hosnon]

29. I believe you prove my point. You have to understand that both are hot and

your son has to trust you on that point.

(Or find out for himself...but not all analogies can be verified like that)

[Dora]

36. "Turn the beat around..."

Your intial assumption about the use and function of analogies is incorrect.

Trust me. :)

[Hosnon]

39. How so?

Curse you Lounge Lizards!

[Dora]

45. Sigh.

Inherent in the definition of an analogy is the absence of identity. For a person to compare a thing with itself yields nothing new. When an analogy is employed, the two things are, by definition, different.

As a result, analogies are immediately suspect as tools of argumentation.

The more closely that the characteristics being compared relate to the characteristics which form the basis of the analogy (the assumption being that they are equal), the more relevant and effective the analogy.

An analogy depends on similarity, not difference. That's true.

Oh, and I noticed that you edited your OP like a rider changing horses midstream.

[Hosnon]

56. I edited nothing of substance from the OP. Calm yourself. And are you

denying that an analogy of a thing with itself yields nothing new?

[Dora]

59. .

"Calm yourself." :eyes: It's poor form to retro-edit a post that holds your originating thesis without specifying what the edit is.

Now.

Your argument is based on a falsity: you say an analogy comparing an object with itself is meaningless.

Your error is one of labeling. Comparing an object with itself is not an analogy - it is an equation. I cannot compare myself to myself because I am myself. I have to compare myself to what I am not in order to discern matters of similarity or difference. An apple compared to an apple is an equation. An apple compared to the red cheeks of a child in snow is an analogy.

You're stuck.

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. No, he needs only understand that the stove is hot

the analogy teaches him, by comparison, that the cup is also, therefore, hot.

Which is why analogy is such an amazing pedagogical tool - because you can take unequal things, one known and one unknown, and through analogy, make the unknown into a known, at least in part.

It's also why analogy - and metaphor and simile - are so wonderful in poetry.

And why analogy is so perfectly suited for use in debate.

[Hosnon]

40. But YOU must understand that both are hot.

Take language:

In order to teach another a language, the teacher must know both.

Eh...usually - pointing can be effective but the point is valid.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Well, obviously. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you.

Of course I can't knowledgably speak about something about which I don't know anything.

:shrug:

I don't see the point of raising that point.

[Hosnon]

47. Well like I said a few posts above...this is another coin - one which I'd

love to think about and continue if interested.

[Dora]

46. Right, but the student doesn't.

So, the teacher understands both A and B, while the student only understands A.

Again, you prove my point.

[Hosnon]

48. How do I prove your point? Help me remember and keep track because

there are two different issues being discussed here.

[hfojvt]

30. settle down there

your getting way to sirius.

[Tenseiga]

4. This thread is much like...

;)

Analogies are good, because they allow you to draw sharper distinctions and similarities (depending on what you're trying to do.)

[kwassa]

12. It is like the effectiveness of foreign policy, or snakes on a plane

The more closely that the characteristics being compared relate to the characteristics which form the basis of the allergy (the assumption being that they are sneezeable), the more relevant and effective the allergy.

Or, something like that.

Get it?

[Hosnon]

15. ALRIGHT! I know I asked for it but what does a man have to do to get some

honest responses around this joint? :)

[kwassa]

18. Excuse me, but this is The Lounge.

Honest responses, indeed.

[Hosnon]

20. I know...but I always get kicked out of GD and GDP:( nt

[Dangerously Amused]

21. Trying to get serious responses to an analogy thread in the Lounge

...is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.



:7

[Hosnon]

16. Dupe (Why do I keep doing this?)

[jayfish]

22. Analogy Isn't A Tool Of Argumentation.

It a tool of definition. You don't throw out an analogy to prove your point. You use an analogy to help morans understand you argument through familiarity.

Jay

[Hosnon]

24. Perhaps it isn't an accurate or effective tool of argumentation but it is

most definitely used as one.

[trackfan]

41. Explaining analogies is like descending a ladder from a roof.

[Xipe Totec]

60. Looks like you stuck your foot in a steaming pile of analogies

No mater how fast you pull your foot away, you're still gonna smell like shit for the rest of the day.

:rofl: