Is basically asking for analogies. I'm not very good at analogies so I'll avoid it. I don't think you are getting anywhere with this thread, but I guess kudos to you for voicing your opinion. You probably made the "issue" worse with this thread and mgobloggers will crack a joke by making analogies all over the place.
Meta - Can we stop arguing by analogy?
and that's fine. As long as I see less awful 50 post tangents about why sanctions are more like crack possession than driving 3 MPH over the speed limit I'll be happy.
I believe you meant to say "fewer" awful tangents. Using improper grammer or speling when making a valid argument is like using an analogy to prove a point. Many who disagree with you will ignore your message, point out your error, and question your intelligence. Once your intelligence has been questioned, your original argument is thereupon discredited.
It's kind of like wearing a t-shirt saying "The Supreme Court Fellates Donkeys" while arguing a brilliant case in front of the Supreme Court. They will disregard some of your message, due to their obvious concern over your judgement (get it? - judgement!) and any arguments coming out of the same head that decided to wear that shirt will be seen as tainted.
Yeah, in your face!
if that is the guy (in your avatar) that fit all those oranges in his mouth on the cover of "Exile on Main Street."
Perhaps he likes 50 post tangents about why sanctions are more like crack possession than driving 3 MPH over the speed limit, and just wishes they were less awful.
I think you're right; 50 post tangents are nice, but they could be improved by being less awful. Like how watching lots of Michigan games the last two years was nice, but it could've been better if we'd had a couple QBs who were in their second year in the program.
Having a couple QBs in their second year in the program would have been like if Hitler had never been born: stuff would have been less bad, but we wouldn't have learned some very important lessons, like don't commit genocide or don't start freshman QBs.
Are not only great, they're a line that intersects a curve at a single point. Of course, there can also be tangent circles and planes, but tangent lines are really more fun.
but I thinking it will make me feel like a fish out of water.....
Analogies provide a more nuanced perspective on the issues. If you think of comments like tuna fish sandwiches, analogies are like the chopped celery. Sure they're not necessary, but they make it more interesting to chew on.
You know, night."
- Steve Martin
I really only opened this thread to read the comments.
pointless as 2007 Notre Dame at Michigan.
about the validity of your statement. Could you please expand on your answer, being sure to include infinite caveats, distinctions, and clarifications? (Yes, infinite)
No. I like analogies.
But I stand by my one about Magnus's addiction and the rest of us being codependent enablers.
means that the user doesn't have a valid argument, or that the use of said analogy vitiates an otherwise strong argument. Sometimes, a well-crafted and apppropriate analogy is a perfect way to help others understand complex or overly dry points of argumentation. I can accept that using them in front of the Supreme Court is perhaps not the best method of making a legal case, but in the vast majority of situations in life not pertaining to arcane minutiae of the law, the use of them is reasonable. It all depends on whether the analogy is apt or not.
Can you list some of the bad analogies you've seen here on MGoBlog?
is bringing up the law - I'm not a litigator and this applies to any argument made anywhere. I'm not pointing to one or two examples, either. If you want examples of particularly bad analogies just open up Magnus' posting history and start reading.
Even an apt analogy distracts from whatever the original point was. People start attacking the analogy and picking it apart, offering counter-examples, etc. Fifty posts later you have forgotten what the hell the point was. It you are debating the validity of an analogy rather than the validity of the proposition, you just watered down the argument. After awhile, the argument becomes meaningless.
Judging by how much you're getting negged, I'd say you're not so great at making arguments, either...
Just like none of your posts ever generate negative point totals.
People argue in front of the Supreme Court in analogies all the time. In fact, many of the questions asked by the Justices are either hypotheticals or analogies. It’s a fantastic way to tease out nuances, rather than trying to evaluate things in a vacuum. I'm a law student, and professors (and students) use them all the time. Comparing cases is an essential part of the American legal system, and it is an extremely useful tool in real life
Now, if you're saying we should ban BAD analogies, I'd agree.
"I'm a law student"
PromoteRichRod? Is that you?
In the 18th century, the Chinese Qing Dynasty sought to ban the Opium Trade from the west, which was a primary trade product, especially of the British Empire. Since Opium was of major importance with the people, it resulted in massive strife and wars both internal and external. The Qing Dynasty ultimately failed to control the Opium trade and lost the war, thus learning that you don't mess with what people love.
is the opiate of the masses.
for totally missing the point.
For those that don't get Allegory, the point has nothing to do with Opium.
You win a +1, because you've just totally nailed me. I am Cornelius.
Isn't that when the music goes really fast?
I think that's Allergy.
the original poster missed the obvious of not reading threads that he does not like...
But that was too obvious of a way to handle it, I guess.
You can tell if posters are arguing by analogy by reading the thread title? That's neat.
I just read their minds, but its kind of like Johnny Carson's old Karnak schtick.
The main issue here, at least in my mind with regard to the recent events, is that NCAA compliance is such a murky world that few, if any, people understand that we need analogies to try and bring our point across.
The fact that we so direly need analogies to explain what's going on here I think is the most telling part about the whole investigation/report. It's pretty easy to understand concepts like "academic fraud" or "improper benefits", but it's not so easy to understand notions like "Countable Athletic Related Activities", "mandatory/voluntary/voluntary but 'mandatory'", and the like. The rise in analogies is likely due to the fact that many MGoBloggers have desperately been trying to explain the situation to friends and family who have not devoted the time or interest to this and have, themselves, gone to analogies because look how confused the people who have been following this closely are, and now imagine trying to explain it to the uninitiated.
If you want to make the case that the relative aptness of analogies is subject to interpretation, you will get no argument from me, but this is a forum, so you will get argument from somewhere.
"dumbed down" without the use of analogies? We went over on allowable practice time by a small amount because we misinterpreted some NCAA regs. We had a coach present in certain activities that he was not allowed to be at. Ok. Now you can talk about whether you think this is particularly bad or whatever.
Besides, everyone is focusing on the "best" uses of analogies here. They are commonly used for really simple concepts too: "Starting Denard this year would be like [insert bad analogy here, bonus points if it's also a cliche]."
are like drawing in the sand at low tide.
I found a fun read here: "Not Afraid: Michigan Football and Slim Shady."
What the hell does Meta actually mean, anyway? I see it all the time and I don't know what it means, and it annoys the hell out of me.
Referencing the board itself, not a topic for discussion on the board.
basically, something within itself. self-referencing. a doggie door could be called a meta-door.
Almost as bad as "meme"..I hate that word
When used properly, they can be very helpful and provide an alternative viewpoint. They can be use poorly, though.
For kicks, check out this link of some truly horrific analogies. Hilarious. Hard to pick a favorite, but I will go with 5 just because I know that sound and it is amusing to imagine anyone laughing like that.
I could not disagree more. I share your distaste for bad analogies, and for debates about the merits of analogies, but they are an indispensible rhetorical tool.
An apt analogy is often the very best form of argument. I know you do not want to hear about the law, but that is where you find many of the best argument-crafters in this age.
John Roberts, before he became CJ of the Supreme Court, drafted a brief in Alaska v. EPA that the justices allegedly said was the finest the Court ever read. The key point in his argument is an analogy comparing Americans' varied choices in cars to states' discretion in selecting pollution controls. Seriously.
Determining the “best” control technology is like asking different people to pick the “best” car. Mario Andretti may select a Ferrari; a college student may choose a Volkswagen Beetle; a family of six a mini-van. A Minnesotan’s choice will doubtless have four-wheel drive; a Floridian’s might well be a convertible. The choices would turn on how the decisionmaker weighed competing priorities such as cost, mileage, safety, cargo space, speed, handling, and so on. Substituting one decisionmaker for another may yield a different result, but not in any sense a more “correct” one. So too here. Because there is no “correct” BACT determination for any particular source, the EPA cannot conclude that a State failed to include the “correct” BACT limitation in a PSD permit, the way the EPA can conclude, say, that the State failed to require a PSD permit, that the State failed to include a BACT limitation at all in a PSD permit, or that the State issued a permit allowing emissions to exceed available increments.
If that is top-shelf argument for the Supreme Court, I think many of our analogies are good enough for Mgoblog.
a rant on anecdotal evidence!
Seriously though, COA/SCOTUS oral arguments may be one of the few places where analogies are necessary. Issues that reach these forums are often novel questions that do not have precedent on point. If you want the court to accept your interpretation you have to point towards similar situations where the court has accepted your position. Luckily, they are handled by some of the best argument crafters out there and opposing counsel/judges have the restraint necessary to stick to the underlying facts.
I am a lawyer and forced to use analogies at times. it's a last resort. Clients often ask difficult questions and instead of coming back with "I got nothing" I have to respond with "well X said this so it may be treated similarly, but Y has said this. I dunno." It's definitely not ideal.
I am a lawyer as well, and the best colleagues I have observed use analogies frequently (not as a last resort). In settings both formal and informal, analogies help crystallize a point, or communicate the complex in a manner that is easily translatable.
(Your examples -- citing "situations where the court has accepted your position" and "X said this so..." -- sound more like appeals to precedent.)
I certainly respect your opinion; but I take the opposite view.
If you must take away my analogy powers, I will have enough wind in my sails to revert to run-of-the-mill cliches.
your answer is "no."
This thread is like a piece of sour candy. It was sour when I saw the thread title and OP, but got sweet as soon as I saw the comments :-D
Arguing by analogy is perfectly permissible and is typically helpful in getting your point across, provided the analogy is valid and sound. The problem comes when someone tries to make an analogy that is faulty and bases their entire argument on that single point.
I'd much rather have someone argue through a logical analogy than through fallacies such as appeal to authority, false dilemma, or confusing of cause and effect.