Support NeoGAF

[Conciliator]

I'm not fully opposed to analogies but most of the time they're used in debates they're just stupid shit that sounds elegant but has fuck all to do with anything. See: Penises are keys, vaginas are locks. But, they're not, so who cares.

 

[Chumpion]

Analogies are like turds: Anybody can make one, and they stink.

 

[Tunin]

Reducionism is useless, you should't impose such restriction. Analogies can be used and will always be used to elucidate different kinds of logic. Theres no such thing as terrible analogy, theres only faulty explanation, people should focus on rebating the logic instead of mocking others' words.

 

[blame space]

How many debates have you guys won on NeoGAF.com?

 

[Cyan]

I'm not fully opposed to analogies but most of the time they're used in debates they're just stupid shit that sounds elegant but has fuck all to do with anything. See: Penises are keys, vaginas are locks. But, they're not, so who cares.

This is an interesting one. On the one hand, you could view the key/lock as a bad analogy, because you disagree with the intuition that's imbedded therein. On the other hand, you could view it as a really useful analogy in that it reveals the hidden assumptions the other person is working from.

I mean, besides the fact that a key is long and hard and throbbing, why did they pick a key and a lock, instead of a USB cable and a USB port, or a male/female audio cable connection, or a pole and a butter churn? Their choice of analogy says a lot about why they're taking the position they're arguing for.

 

[empty vessel]

Analogies are effective tools in debates.

I agree.

 

[Devolution]

Clueless always had one of my favorite analogies in a movie, for some reason it cracks me every time.

OK, like, the way I feel about the Rolling Stones is the way my kids are going to feel about Nine Inch Nails, so I really shouldn't torment my Mom anymore, huh?

lol

 

[Lambda Pie]

all the time. and i always use food.

 

[Aristion]

Arguments from analogy have always been very effective in the history of argumentation.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

If you can't replace your analogy by the principle it's supposed to prove then it's useless.

That sais, if you can already put that principle into words, then you don't need an analogy (or just as an example), so analogies are pretty much always useless.

Will computer MKIII see that not all objective facts are easy to understand unless placed in an accurate analogy?

 

[Conciliator]

How many debates have you guys won on NeoGAF.com?

If you can get the other person to stop posting, you win

 

[Angelus Errare]

Personally, I hate the use of anecdotal evidence moreso than analogies.

 

[paile]

I use analogies to help explain the point I'm making but both the analogy and the general overall gist of what I'm trying to say are usually lost at who they're being directed at in any event.

 

[The Technomancer]

I usually try to use analogies only when I think a person is actually not understanding the principle I'm trying to express and I want to reframe things in a way they may find more understandable. I don't like analogies that are basically "but what if I invoked something you care about would you agree with me then?" although I'm sure over the years I've used some of those.

 

[pizza dog]

How many debates have you guys won on NeoGAF.com?

GAF is like WarGames; the only winning move...

 

[The Technomancer]

How many debates have you guys won on NeoGAF.com?

I'm not even sure what you could define winning as. Usually I just hope to expose people to a different point of view (which I know I've done in the past) as well as hone my own sense of my beliefs and models of the world. I have learned a ridiculous amount and greatly refined my stance on a lot of issues that are important to me.

 

[thelooseteeth]

Almost all scientific thought is nested in analogy so as to be comprehended by a general audience. The most important part of a debate is the audience. If they can't understand what is being argued, then what's the purpose?

 

[Bear]

Analogies are useful tools that are likely to be misused. They can provide a level of clarity that literal examples cannot, and a good analogy will distill complex ideas to their most basic elements. That's why they are ubiquitous in science, they are especially well suited for concepts that are abstract or difficult to grasp.

The problem is that most people are terrible at constructing them. I often see people trying to attack some perceived hypocrisy using analogies with questionable relevance and a complete disregard for context. Debates that consist primarily of back-and-forth analogies are just unbearable.

Analogies can be powerful for concepts that benefit from added clarity, but one should avoid making it the basis of any argument.