This is not like that.

[David Roth weiss]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Without naming names, I’ve noticed the increasingly pervasive use of analogies as tools of argument here.”

I’m so glad you brought this up Franz. I mean, we’re supposed to be communicators after all, so discussing “process” is a good thing.

And, let’s not name names, but what do you get in the mail that’s not junk mail, not a letter, and not a payment?

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I did a quick search and this was the best link I could find outlining the many pitfalls of analogy and why it has the reputation for being “the weakest form of argument”.”

And, on top of that, forgetting their a weak form of argument, some of the analogies are really weak analogies.

[Andrew Richards]

I’m not naming any names either, but we should all also endeavor to avoid the many other logical fallacies.

Best,
Andy

[Herb Sevush]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “outlining the many pitfalls of analogy and why it has the reputation for being “the weakest form of argument”.”

I’m a sucker for a girl with a bad reputation, or as the song goes, the sadder but wiser girl for me.

I love analogies; they’re colorful and information rich, a great shorthand way to make a complicated point. Good analogies are good, bad analogies should be exposed and fanciful analogies shall forever have a place in both my heart and my logical toolbox. They were good enough for Plato, they’re good enough for the cow.

If only I were clever enough to think of an analogy to this discussion of analogies.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Bobby Mosca]

Complaining about analogies in this forum is no different than cooking eggs benedict in China. I mean, really. Get over yourself.

[Richard Herd]

Someone better tell Plato his Allegory of the Cave is out-moded by the Englightenment.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “Someone better tell Plato his Allegory of the Cave is out-moded by the Englightenment.”

Richard,

… or you could read the linked article.

Also, you’ve committed logical fallacy above, so you may wish to read up on that link as well (helpfully provided as if in anticipation of your comment).

Franz.

[Bernard Newnham]

“Without naming names, I’ve noticed the increasingly pervasive use of analogies as tools of argument here.

(Gratuitous Apple / car analogy included for illustration purposes.)”

Well, you can feel free to name me. An analogy – NLE/car for instance – is a much quicker way of making a point than going endlessly and boringly into theories and practice of convergent design styles. “The accelerator pedal is on the right” avoids a very long and boring paragraph.

B

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Bernard,

Since it is clear that people are commenting here without actually reading the linked material, I’ll pull an introductory quote for reference:

Comparisons and analogies are a natural part of everyday argument; philosophers have used them as far back as Plato. Educators love them because they help students understand complicated concepts. But propagandists and ideologues also love them, because it is easy to hide a flawed argument inside of an analogy. … So how do we distinguish good analogies from bad? In this article, we look at the different ways in which analogies are used in arguments. By understanding why people use analogies, we can come up with some informal guidelines for using them properly.

Franz.

[Jeremy Garchow]

NLE go vroom?

I need a manual transmission and they give me an automatic?

Why haul a heavy load in an Audi?

Is this helping at all?

[Richard Herd]

Your assumptions are well documented.