Argument and your knowledge about it

[Technon]

I wonder if people here generally have some knowledge about things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
If not, I suggest you read up on it. This topic discusses how you would go about when for example evaluating an analogy. See especially:

Strength of an analogy
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

• The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
• The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.
• The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.

So these three should be used as argumentative basis when evaluating.

Perhaps I should actually go even more back to basics, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument How many of you are actually familiar with this topic to any greater extent?

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't speak for others, but the list of logical fallacies (of which 'faulty analogy' is one) is one of my primary tools - at least on other fora where opinions rule over facts.

 

[Fred Wright]

I can't speak for others, but the list of logical fallacies (of which 'faulty analogy' is one) is one of my primary tools - at least on other fora where opinions rule over facts.

I find naked 'faulty analogy" less annoying than tautology repeating 'faulty analogy', especially in the scholarship of international relations and the global financial system.

 

[phinds]

I wonder if people here generally have some knowledge about things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

This would be an excellent way to help you understand why your "stone in the water is analogous to wave particle duality" in the other thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/waveparticle-duality.960699/) is so flawed.

 

[Technon]

This would be an excellent way to help you understand why your "stone in the water is analogous to wave particle duality" in the other thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/waveparticle-duality.960699/) is so flawed.

You are the first I would recommend to read up on this topic, since you haven't been able to present any argument that follows the principles of argumentation - which I even quoted, to give you some examples, to make it easier for you.

 

[phinds]

You are the first I would recommend to read up on this topic, since you haven't been able to present any argument that follows the principles of argumentation - which I even quoted, to give you some examples, to make it easier for you.

Well, don't worry about it. After you've studied some more physics you'll understand why the analogy is so flawed.

 

[fresh_42]

This topic discusses how you would go about when for example evaluating an analogy.

Any analogy is per construction doomed to fail, in my opinion. It can only relate to one specific aspect among usually many, and unfortunately, combatants often fail to work out this aspect in comparison to all other. Thus it is an issue of rhetoric, not an issue of science - simply because conditions aren't explained beforehand.

 

[Technon]

Any analogy is per construction doomed to fail, in my opinion. It can only relate to one specific aspect among usually many, and unfortunately, combatants often fail to work out this aspect in comparison to all other. Thus it is an issue of rhetoric, not an issue of science - simply because conditions aren't explained beforehand.

The topic is argumentation which in turn is a sub topic of reasoning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Would you really claim reason to be an issue of "rhetoric" rather than science?

 

[fresh_42]

The topic is argumentation which in turn is a sub topic of reasoning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Would you really claim reason to be an issue of "rhetoric" rather than science?

I said analogies, not reason. These subtleties are exactly the difference. You deliberately changed my statement for the sake of argument, not reason. Science requires a well defined set-up and a basis for discussion. Analogies cannot provide this. Logic and rhetoric are two different things. The former is suited for scientific debates, the latter for small talk and ramblings.

 

[Technon]

I said analogies, not reason. These subtleties are exactly the difference. You deliberately changed my statement for the sake of argument, not reason. Science requires a well defined set-up and a basis for discussion. Analogies cannot provide this. Logic and rhetoric are two different things. The former is suited for scientific debates, the latter for small talk and ramblings.

There exists arguments based on logic, you know.

 

[fresh_42]

There exists arguments based on logic, you know.

Sure, but not all rhetorical figures are logical arguments. I think you demonstrated this very well so far. You claim logic but use rhetoric:

I said analogies, not reason. These subtleties are exactly the difference. You deliberately changed my statement for the sake of argument, not reason.

 

[Dale]

There exists arguments based on logic, you know.

Yes, so let’s stick to arguments based on logic rather than arguments based on analogies.

Thread closed