Skip to main content

Reasoning by Analogy

Using Analogies

We all use analogies to explain the concepts we want to impart, to convince, to help understand, and to reduce to a simpler more physical and familiar level of understanding.  Analogies have been used over the great span of time, even in Plato’s Phaedo, where the philosopher’s soul of reason should not do and redo arguments as with Penelope’s rug2. (Plato, Phaedo)

Research says indicates that using analogies assists in concept development. This is something we’ve all suspected. It is interesting to note that it is somewhat established in the literature1.   To be effective, analogies must be familiar, and their features must be synchronous with those of the target.

Reasoning by analogy indicates the target concept is like something else.  You can argue it, but it is still only an analogy and may prove nothing at all.  The real problem is that the analogy may be false, and worse still is that your audience may interpret your intended concept through the analogy, which may be off the mark and function more as a misdirection than a learning tool.  Thus the concept is understood only through a simple or single facet of what is intended, not approaching anywhere near the true idea. This could be intended. 

We seek to bring a concept into the sphere of one’s understandings.  But it is important to clarify how the analogy and target differ to avoid confusion or misconceptions.  It is also important to clarify how the analogy differs from the actual concept lest oversimplification results.  

This is the point.  The analogy is often an oversimplification of the concept, and through it the listener often experiences a misconception of the idea or concept that is intended.  

Beware of analogies. They can be distracting,  distracting, diverting, divisive, disrespectful, demonizing, and deceiving, not to mention misleading and misdirecting.
Simple examples:  See http://examples.yourdictionary.com/analogy-ex.html

It is remarkable how many ideas and concepts in religious and philosophical works are based upon analogy.  If any two subjects are defined by analogy, these are the two.

Comments

  1. You make good points about the usefulness of analogies and the fact that limitations and differences must be included to prevent misconceptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't emphasize, but do now, that in most cases analogies are used to help the scaffolding of understanding.

      Perhaps in politics they are designed to strictly mislead and misdirect. I guess this is what demagoguery is part and parcel to. Doesn't matter the partisanship.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view