Tell me that I'm not the only one seeing it. (TL
R in the bottom.)
----------
This happens at least once every controversial topic, but generally I see it happening again and again and again, in a cyclical conversation that never leaves the same point. Analogies aren't mysterious figures of speech, in fact, the idea is pretty simple. It's just an inference that compares the relationship between two things: 'A' is to 'B' as well as 'C' is to 'D', where the relationship between 'A' and 'B' must be the same as in 'C' and 'D'. That's it.
But still, I see two glaring errors arise in virtually every topic.
The first is when someone who doesn't understand the nature of an analogy, comparing two situations (or things) that aren't really comparable - or at least, they aren't comparable in the specific aspect in which the analogy was made. Things like comparing DRM in video games with STEAM's DRM, or something along these lines. Here I don't need to dwell too much because the error is kinda obvious: the specific properties of the things being compared must be the same, at least in regards of the question of the comparison.
The second is almost the opposite to the first, people who cannot recognize a valid analogy. This almost always happens when in an argument, someone uses a 'reductio ad absurdum' (proof by contradiction), which is when someone takes one or more hypotheses and, from these, derive the most absurd/incoherent possible consequence, then, concluding that original assumption must be wrong.
That, logically speaking, it is a perfect way to show that certain argument is wrong. This argument makes use of the law of non-contradiction (a proposition cannot be both true and false) and the law of excluded middle (a proposition is true or false, and there isn't a third possibility). It is a test used even in mathematics. If the initial comparison was really valid, is a prudent and logical way to argue.
But many people don't understand that the point of the comparison is to show the most absurd situation possible using the same logic. ("You just compared DLC with murder? Nonsense!") Then, I see many people rejecting perfectly viable analogies by sheer refusal to understand how an analogy should work.
----------
TLR - people don't seem to know how to use analogies, why the hell does this happen?
PS: ESL here, so please try to forgive any typos and writing errors.
EDIT 1:I changed the word "STEAM" for "STEAM's DRM" to clarify and see if we can avoid redundant questions in the topic.
R in the bottom.)----------
This happens at least once every controversial topic, but generally I see it happening again and again and again, in a cyclical conversation that never leaves the same point. Analogies aren't mysterious figures of speech, in fact, the idea is pretty simple. It's just an inference that compares the relationship between two things: 'A' is to 'B' as well as 'C' is to 'D', where the relationship between 'A' and 'B' must be the same as in 'C' and 'D'. That's it.
But still, I see two glaring errors arise in virtually every topic.
The first is when someone who doesn't understand the nature of an analogy, comparing two situations (or things) that aren't really comparable - or at least, they aren't comparable in the specific aspect in which the analogy was made. Things like comparing DRM in video games with STEAM's DRM, or something along these lines. Here I don't need to dwell too much because the error is kinda obvious: the specific properties of the things being compared must be the same, at least in regards of the question of the comparison.
The second is almost the opposite to the first, people who cannot recognize a valid analogy. This almost always happens when in an argument, someone uses a 'reductio ad absurdum' (proof by contradiction), which is when someone takes one or more hypotheses and, from these, derive the most absurd/incoherent possible consequence, then, concluding that original assumption must be wrong.
That, logically speaking, it is a perfect way to show that certain argument is wrong. This argument makes use of the law of non-contradiction (a proposition cannot be both true and false) and the law of excluded middle (a proposition is true or false, and there isn't a third possibility). It is a test used even in mathematics. If the initial comparison was really valid, is a prudent and logical way to argue.
But many people don't understand that the point of the comparison is to show the most absurd situation possible using the same logic. ("You just compared DLC with murder? Nonsense!") Then, I see many people rejecting perfectly viable analogies by sheer refusal to understand how an analogy should work.
----------
TL
R - people don't seem to know how to use analogies, why the hell does this happen?PS: ESL here, so please try to forgive any typos and writing errors.
EDIT 1:I changed the word "STEAM" for "STEAM's DRM" to clarify and see if we can avoid redundant questions in the topic.
