Meta - Can we stop arguing by analogy?
This has pretty much been bugging me since the beginning of time, but the recent sanctions discussions really drive it home--arguing by analogy is a terrible, terrible way to get a point across. It is what people do when they (i) do not have a strong argument on the substance of the claim (ii) do not know how to articulate their point, and/or (iii) they have exhausted all standard arguments and just want to be argumentative.
The other main problem is that the vast majority of situations just aren't comparable enough to make any sort of analogy worthwhile. Even if they are, many people aren't able to make the infinite clarifications/caveats/distinctions necessary to satisfy those that will challenge the analogy. Therein lies the issue: 95% of arguments on this board (and in actual conversations, etc.) involving analogies devolve into a sub-thread debating the merits of the analogy itself rather than the substance of the discussion.
What was the point of this? I don't know. Raise awareness about a pretty minor issue? Is it still the offseason? Yeah.
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.