Its annoying that people complain about analogies like that. “youre comparing the good thing A to the bad thing B?? How dare you?” Its just an analogy to make a point, noone was arguing that A was bad or that B was good…
Right… but analogies use simplifications. The only thing perfectly analogous to A is A itself. So to make an analogy between A and B, I need to simplify both to the point where the differences disappear. What was your point?
My point is that ignoring a bunch of implied context isn’t a compelling argument. The obvious difference between cancer and body hair is that hair growth is the normal state and cancer is aberrant growth. This shouldn’t need to be pointed out.
I get that sometimes there is implied context. But at this point we are guessing what her argument is… some guess the argument is just “it grew there naturally so it must be supposed to be there” and you should be able to replace “it” with anything, while other people like you guess that its implied that “it” shouldnt be replaced with things that grow aberrantly. The analogy dinogatorr makes is fine for critiquing the first ‘unrefined’ argument that we see a lot of people make all the time. We could use “implied” context to dismiss any pointing out of flawed logic leading to good conclusions (you need to swap the objects for that, i suppose).
Its annoying that people complain about analogies like that. “youre comparing the good thing A to the bad thing B?? How dare you?” Its just an analogy to make a point, noone was arguing that A was bad or that B was good…
Oversimplification does not an analogy make.
Right… but analogies use simplifications. The only thing perfectly analogous to A is A itself. So to make an analogy between A and B, I need to simplify both to the point where the differences disappear. What was your point?
My point is that ignoring a bunch of implied context isn’t a compelling argument. The obvious difference between cancer and body hair is that hair growth is the normal state and cancer is aberrant growth. This shouldn’t need to be pointed out.
I get that sometimes there is implied context. But at this point we are guessing what her argument is… some guess the argument is just “it grew there naturally so it must be supposed to be there” and you should be able to replace “it” with anything, while other people like you guess that its implied that “it” shouldnt be replaced with things that grow aberrantly. The analogy dinogatorr makes is fine for critiquing the first ‘unrefined’ argument that we see a lot of people make all the time. We could use “implied” context to dismiss any pointing out of flawed logic leading to good conclusions (you need to swap the objects for that, i suppose).