Analogies are poor debate tools

Great Debates
1

In a previous thread, I made a half-hearted attempt to explain that all analogies are inherently flawed. I thought I would elaborate on the topic.

In general, analogies can be an effective and powerful learning tool. They can be used to help explain a concept to another person in a way they can see more clearly. They can even be used to help you see things more clearly.

Indeed, I just read a book review in “Skeptic” magazine by Chris Edwards discussing the book, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander.

Edwards says that Hofstadter and Sander make the claim that all of science lies on the foundation of analogy. Even the primacy of mathematics to physics and chemistry are ultimately subsumed by the importance of analogy to the scientist’s ability to understand and conceive. They rely on the notion that Einstein’s insights came to him in the form of analogy.

They also creatively tweak the concept of analogy to be broader than the basic “this is like that” form, so I’m not sure what to make of all that. Without reading the book, I’m not sure how much I agree. But I mentioned it to point out that there is strong argument for the value of analogies as learning tools.

However, when it comes to debates, I think they are ultimately poor tools - primarily because of how they are typically used. So how are analogies inherently flawed?

Well, the thing with analogies is that you are looking for similarities, but if the things were identical, they wouldn’t be analogies, they would be the same thing. The point point of an analogy is to take something the other person does understand to demonstrate what they do not understand. This often means taking something that is complex and complicated and finding a simpler representation, a kind of model. It can also be taking something esoteric or exotic and trying to compare it with something common. Either way, the person creating the analogy is trying to highlight the elements of similarity that they find important, and ignore the dissimilarities as irrelevant.

The problems can arise when someone tries to overextend the analogy, either the student questioning the analogy or the thinker conceptualizing and going off on an invalid path. It’s important to understand what the limitations of the analogy actually are. In a learning environment (formal or informal), the teacher can point out those flaws. If someone is conceptualizing on their own, they can back check with experiment and with peer review.

But a debate situation raises extra complications due to the dynamics of the conversation. Debate is inherently adversarial - two or more sides are pitted against each other trying to defend an intellectual (or moral) position. In a debate situation, the participants are not motivated to agree to the same constraints, to accept the limitations of the analogy as presented. A lot of rules lawyering occurs to find the flaws in the analogy to make the opponent’s argument look weak.

Furthermore, there is a pressure to score rhetorical points by setting up analogies that are phrased to show the opponent’s position in the worst light. This can lead to oversimplified or even strawman analogies. The use of analogies in debates turn less into a moment to instruct the other person in the flaws in their thinking and more of a way to humiliate them to the audience.

In short, I think that in debate situations, analogies should be used sparingly, and if used, care should be applied to rein in the impulse to snark. YMMV.

2

I wonder how long it’s going to be before someone tries to refute this argument with a poor analogy. I generally agree with you, by the way, but analogies when done in a less adversarial setting can be very useful. SCOTUS, for example, regularly uses analogies to extend and apply legal reasoning, with at least some success.

3

Analogies are a tool and as such can be useful or actually dangerous for the user depending on the user’s skills or the work that needs to be done

4

Analogies are very useful when used this way, to foster understanding of a complex idea. Debates are usually not impacted by one side failing to understand the idea. In debates, analogies are used to compare two similar ideas that are treated differently, such as Interracial Marriage vs. Same Sex Marriage.

Turn this on its head and analogies are useful in debates. You create an analogy by finding similarities, but highlight the differences, don’t ignore them. Those differences are what is causing the opposition to treat the scenarios differently. By highlighting them, you highlight the reasoning behind the different treatment, and can argue against it.

5

Analogies are like naked bodies. Some are damn near perfect, and others are not even worth imagining.

6

I believe the good Doctor means that analogies are *like *a tool, but otherwise I agree. Analogies can be useful for illustrating a point and instructing an audience. Bear in mind that the goal of a debate is rarely to convince your opponent of something so much as to convince the listeners of something.

7

Analogies are good, in debates and elsewhere, for clarifying the logic of the issue. I might introduce an analogy in order to explain why I think X about S, by pointing out that S is like T and X is true about T too. This is an invitation for you to explain what the difference is between S and T that makes X not follow in S. Or, rarely, to say “huh I never thought of it that way!” and buy the analogy.

8

Analogies are better as illustrations than as proofs. As a practical matter, they’ll be more effective with neutral bystanders than with one’s debate opponents. Although they might be effective with the debate opponent in the rare instances in which the opponent is genuinely motivated by the search of knowledge and understanding versus “winning” the debate.

The ultimate purpose of an analogy is to present the underlying principles or logic in a form which strips out extraneous factors that may be present in the specific case being discussed. Of course, whether those other factors are truly “extraneous” will frequently be subject to disagreement.

9

They have their place. Sometimes you just have to replace something emotionally charged with something less so. To discount an argument because it contains an analogy isn’t logical in my view- one could always argue why that analogy isn’t apt.

10

Totally agree, and it’s usually why I use analogies. Or to put things into a context that is more easy to understand or grasp. They can be overused and can certainly be bad, but I don’t think they are poor debate tools when used properly.

It’s like when…

:stuck_out_tongue:

11

Analogies in a debate can serve the same purpose that they do in teaching, namely that they can be useful to clarify or simplify a concept so that it’s more easily communicated and understood.

A good analogy in a debate is similar in that sense to a reductio ad absurdum, which is a powerful tool in logic.

A bad analogy in a debate, however, is basically a straw man.

The problem with using an analogy in a debate is only that the two sides will inevitably end up bickering about whether the analogy is brilliantly illuminating or whether it’s a stupid irrelevant straw man! :smiley: But that’s OK – you’ll never convince your opponent anyway, but you may be able to convince your audience!

12

Fortunately, not everybody “debates” like the loudest mouths of the SDMB.

13

This thread is about as exciting as dancing with your sister.

14

I think the time and effort spent to debunk analogies is the far greater disservice to debate, rather than an analogy being raised in the first place. For example, I see the following exchange played out on the SDMB in several variations all the damned time. (I realize I’m not using a strict analogy in this example, but please bear with me.)

A: "An apple is like an orange in that it has seeds that can grow a new fruit tree."
B: “No, an apple isn’t like an orange. They are different colors.”
C: “Yeah, you can peel an orange but not an apple.”
D: “WTF? Oranges are grown in Florida. Apples are from Washington or something.”
E: “Only a damned idiot thinks that apples are the same as oranges.”
A: "I’m not saying that apples are oranges. I’m saying they are similar in that they both have seeds."
C: “Now he’s saying that “apples are oranges!” Stop listening to this troll!”
E: “If you want to make a good analogy, you need to say that apples are like apples. Everything else is wrong.”
A: "No, I’m just talking about seeds…"
B: “Oh, now apples are like watermelons! Is this guy nuts?”
D: “Next he’s going to say that a car is like an angler fish!!”
A: [throws himself off a cliff]

I have to constantly remind myself when I post here to cut back on analogies even for really basic explanations of things, because I get so tired of people extrapolating analogies so far beyond what they were intended to illustrate.

15

Analogies are not the real thing and all analogies break down at some point. But language and math are also not the real thing and break down for the same reason. They just have a more distant break down point.

So yes, your point is absolutely correct, your description is never the same as the real thing. But it breaks down in that analogies are effective rhetorical tools because they allow an audience with no background to get a glimpse like: experience of quantum physics to understand that the cat is alive and dead at the same time and that they just do not understand it, but they understand the outlines of what they do and don’t understand by analogy.

16

If we’re supposed to accept the idea that debates are poor debate tools, we need to have a reference point. What debate tactics have a better track record than arguing through analogy?

The usefulness of an analogy depends on whether you’re debating someone who can process analogies. Not everyone can do this. This isn’t a reflection on the value of analogies. It just means you need to know your audience.

Years ago there was a thread asking people their views regarding forced pregnancy in the event humanity was on the brink of extinction. I was among those who found this prospect revolting, however someone analogized the issue to the draft. While considering this comparison didn’t force me to change my negative stance, it did persuade me to see this as not as crazy and dystopic of an idea as I initially did. This is the power of analogies. Even if they don’t cause a complete reversal in opinion, they can help to identify flaws in your own reasoning and/or make you more open-minded towards alternative views.

17

Well put.

This I also like.

I don’t think this is what you meant to say, but I like it anyway. :slight_smile:

Also good points.

18

Hear, hear.

So many online arguments are derailed by people haggling over analogies, and then hypotheticals based on analogies. So instead of citing evidence of angels existing people will argue whether it’s better to stab a million angels with one pin or one angel a million times.

19

Well, you’d need to define ‘better’…

:stuck_out_tongue:

20

Seems like that argument could backfire to where you then hate the draft even more.