-
This is not like that.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “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.
“Sounds good to me. I looked at your link, and what is described there is elementary Logic. I, too, despair when folks analogize to paste over fallacious reasoning.
-
Analogies, schlamologies.
I use them. I’ll continue to use them.
The more insidious and disingenuous tactic, IMO is to try to “re-frame” the argument by establishing that the only rules worthy to govern the game are “your” rules. That’s not only presumptuous, it’s insulting.
We’ve done just fine here for years without the need for you to arbitrate what constitutes proper arguing, and I suspect that we could go along fine for another few decades under the current open discussion system.
You want to argue analogy free – knock yourself out. Heck, you want to argue here without using quotes, capitalization, metaphor, simile, onomatopoeia; or construct thoughts using nothing but dialog lifted straight from early episodes of Star Trek – feel free.
It’s an open board. You don’t like what someone else writes – you have two persistent options that are universally available to handle that. One is don’t read that author. The other is to make a better counter-argument.
But seriously, attempting to to exercise control of the rules is ALWAYS the first glaring sign of someone who can’t compete in the game as it’s already being played.
Metaphores and similes are wrappers. The idea inside is the gift. You want to hang out talking wrapping paper, get a job in a Hallmark store.
FWIW.
(OK, seeing that posted, it comes across snarkier than I extended. But really, this seems quite a silly argument to me. Plus it was fun to write. So Ignore my signature below. This one stands even if slightly uncivil, because I feel truly dumb ideas sometimes actually do deserve to be labeled as precisely that.)
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Uh… HELLO! I already said that. Sheesh.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Without naming names, I’ve noticed the increasingly pervasive use of analogies as tools of argument here.
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”.
https://arstechnica.com/business/problem-solving/2010/11/part-3-analogies-in...
(Gratuitous Apple / car analogy included for illustration purposes.)
Offending parties, please brush up on your argument skills”
Talk about brushing up on your argument skills. This is so weak.
I don’t even know why you would post this, other than to be a snob, or you are trolling us.
I don’t have any problem with analogies, or metaphors. I don’t mind reading them, and I find them useful at times. The Cows is mostly inhabited by folks that think in pictures, not words, which is completely different than forums where writers hang out like the Celtx or Final Draft. And they are useful on a forum where there are many reading what is written in a second language, and may not be familiar with bits of local slang.
And sometimes when using them, it can give you a new perspective on what you are talking about.However, I do have a problem with people that don’t get to the point, or make me chase around following links.
First, unless you are someone well know on the boards, I’m not going to your link for security reasons.
Second, if you don’t have the time to post what you have to say, then I guess I don’t have the time to go read it. My time is at least as valuable as yours.
Both of the above points apply equally to videos, pics, text, etc. Either paste it, embedded it, or upload the relevant content to the Cows. And I mean relevant. I don’t want to watch five minutes of your favorite band video just to see some overused FX you’re curious about, nor do I want to read pages of text just to find the one paragraph you’re referencing.Offending parties please brush up on your posting etiquette.
Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair
Where were you on 6/21?
-
[Bill Davis] “The more insidious and disingenuous tactic, IMO is to try to “re-frame” the argument by establishing that the only rules worthy to govern the game are “your” rules. That’s not only presumptuous, it’s insulting.
“and
[Bill Davis] “But seriously, attempting to to exercise control of the rules is ALWAYS the first glaring sign of someone who can’t compete in the game as it’s already being played.
“I certainly don’t see how what Franz has said in anyway constitutes an example of what you are accusing him of here. I think it is a fair observation about the sloppiness of argument on this site, which you can agree with or not, or take to heart or not. Saying that he is “attempting to to exercise control of the rules” could be seen as an “insidious and disingenuous tactic” “to try to “re-frame” the argument by establishing that the only rules worthy to govern the game are “your” rules.” I don’t see it that way though; I think we mostly just get caught up in our own rhetoric, and dig our own rumbling baritones.
I share Franz’s taste for good, clean logic, though I do enjoy a tasty analogy that is properly illustrative of the presented argument. My guess is that Franz is just fine with that as well. The problem arises when an analogy is used–innocently or otherwise–to mask any fallacies present in an argument. It becomes a powerful tool in the hands of con men, talking heads, politicians, and sales folk. You know, sort of a verbal version of the shell game, or many a magic trick that works off of mis-direction.
Bill, I’m pretty certain that you can find it in yourself to understand that Franz was not trying to set up rules, but was instead complaining about the magical misdirection he seems to think takes place here on occasion. By the way, is this your card?
-
[Scott Sheriff] “unless you are someone well know on the boards, I’m not going to your link for security reasons.”
Scott I think you are way out of line here. Franz is a great asset and highly respected contributor to this forum. His post was, I believe, a little tongue in cheek. We all get a little crazy with analogies here, no one more so than me, and it can get fairly silly. I have no intentions of changing my analogus way of thinking, but his link was enlightening and well worth reading if you have an interest in either logic or rhetoric.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “Scott I think you are way out of line here. Franz is a great asset and highly respected contributor to this forum.”
Way out of line? LOL I grew up in the 80’s. Remember the MTV slogan, “Too much, is never enough”. I guess if I’m only way out of line, I must be falling asleep on the job!
I’m not accusing anybody, of anything. I’m just saying that my rule of thumb is to not get rick-rolled following blind links posted by people I don’t recognize. I’m sure I’m not the only one. You may recognize Franz, but I don’t have a clue who he is, nothin’ personal.
For the most part, the majority of the legitimate, but blind links on the Cows turn out to be real time wasters because the poster just didn’t want to spend the extra 30 seconds, but expects everyone else reading the post to do so. And I have seen plenty of posts that are nothing more than an attempt to drive traffic to a site. Have you not seen this a lot on the Cows?
For example if Franz could have either quoted an interesting paragraph from the article, followed by the link. Alternatively, how about this; “Here’s an interesting, but off topic article on ___” followed by the link.[Herb Sevush] “His post was, I believe, a little tongue in cheek.”
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I guess that vibe was a little too subtle for me to pick up on.
How it came across to me is, “There is too much analogy, that is inacurate on the board for my taste, and here is a 1500 word article you need to read that reinforces my point.” Just sayin’…I prefer when people reinforce their arguments with their own words.Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair
Where were you on 6/21?
-
Monty Python 5 minute argument anyone? While we are on the philosophy of writing I would like to share the lyric of a song, sung by my friend Bruce Watson –
Now when I was a boy one was taught English Grammar
These days standards have gone down the drain
We had it banged into us, with an unsubtle hammer
And it’s firmly lodged into my brain
There’s a million mistakes that you see people make
Now and then there’s an absolute whopper
So here’s a few tips to avoid obvious slips
To help you all write and speak proper:Be sure to never split an infinitive
Don’t use no double negatives
And never generalise, that’s a rule you see everyone break!
Be clear as a bell, profread everythnig well
Be more or less specific, don’t be vague
And (last but not least) avoid clichés like the plagueIt’s incumbent upon us to eschew obfuscation
And where feasible to employ the vernacular
Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice
And understatement is absolutely spectacular!
Use language that’s inclusive of all men
And here’s something else you should know
The use of foreign words is not ‘de rigeur’
Nor is it apropos{chorus}
Always avoid awkward annoying
Unattractive affected alliteration
Avoidification of George Bushian neologisms
Will strengthenify your prosification
If you see a mixed metaphor, take the bull by the horns
And knock it right off it’s perch
And vary your words variously
So that you use various words{chorus}
Exaggeration is a trillion zillion times worse
Than just stating the plain simple facts
And use words correctly, irregardless of what others do
To show you’ve got the language knack
The passive voice should always be avoided
Heed should be taken of that suggestion
And what I now ask of all of you is:
“Who needs a rhetorical question?”{chorus}
-
Haalloo Bruce! Oh, Rene Descarte was a drunken…..
……I drink, therefore I am.
-
[Bill Davis] “Analogies, schlamologies.
I use them. I’ll continue to use them.”
Yes, you will, and bad ones at that, no doubt.
[Bill Davis] “The more insidious and disingenuous tactic, IMO is to try to “re-frame” the argument by establishing that the only rules worthy to govern the game are “your” rules. That’s not only presumptuous, it’s insulting.”
Oh God, there you go again, projecting your own stuff onto everyone else. The fault is not in the stars dear Brutus…
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up