Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!gatech!mngrve From: mngrve@gatech.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.flame Subject: Re: Another look Message-ID: <9684@gatech.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 11:38:06 EDT Article-I.D.: gatech.9684 Posted: Fri Aug 17 11:38:06 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 13:50:17 EDT References: <672@opus.UUCP> <9496@gatech.UUCP>, <701@opus.UUCP> Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta Lines: 85 > In evaluating any moral or ethical system it is often necessary to > draw upon past examples of similar systems to support ones arguments. > In recent years a favorite example has been the Nazi system. The > reason for these comparisons is that it is HARD to find examples of > systems which are "indisputably" evil. > > Since you have put yourself into the position of criticizing someones > choice of example, I suggest you give them a "legal" set of comparators > so that they don't have to worry about angering you. [me] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "legal set of comparators" includes at most those systems for which a cogent and significant analogy to the comparand exists. Stated differently, don't call it "Nazi-like" just because you don't like it. [Dick Dunn] --------------------------------------------------------------------------. Good. Now we have something concrete to work with. Specifically, we are to make comparisons to that for which a "cogent and significant analogy to the comparand exists." Now we are left to define what "cogent" means, and what we are to consider "significant." :^) One person's cogency is another person's idiocy. Some people may find a response such as the above response cogent, some others might find it idiotic. Certainly, a response to a request for guidelines in debating in a reasonable way where the response consists of nothing specific may be considered cogent, but can it be considered significant? I am led to believe that Dick Dunn's definition of significance is very similar to my own-- anything which will help you to "win" a discussion is significant. :^) Anyway, the fact remains: 1. You have failed to define what constitutes a good analogy. 2. You have failed to quantify the the necessary amount of corelation between a topic and an analogy before that analogy is acceptable to yourself 3. You have not offered any qualitative information on what can be used to judge whether an analogy is a "good" analogy or a "bad" analogy. 4. You have set yourself up as ultimate arbitrator of reality (analogy division) :^) 5. You have not given any specific examples of what you consider to be good analogies and what you consider to be bad analogies. 6. You made a sweeping generalization about an entire class of analogies without deigning to attack any specific cases which you found offensive thereby missing out on a great opportunity to educate us all in poor analogy detection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are going to claim that an analogy is bad, you must point to specific ramifications of the analogy and show how they are not bared out in that which is being analogized. You must point to specific features of the comparison which are incorrect/inappropriate. Example: If someone says that Donald Duck is like World War III then it is appropriate to argue: I do not think that analogy is valid because Donald Duck is a fictional cartoon character and World War III is a fictional Geopolitical conflict. It is not correct to argue: That is stupid, everyone always makes comparisons to Donald Duck when they argue, and if anyone does that again I am going to start frothing at the mouth and destroying the furniture. :^) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Which came first, the eye or the I? Marc Goodman CSNet: mngrve @ GaTech ARPA: mngrve.GaTech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!mngrve