Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part IX (Comparison)

Comparison

When we place 2 or more things together in order to measure them against each other, we make a comparison.

When a similarity, a likeness, seems to be found, we have to that degree an analogy.

- analogies go by various names: simile, fable, precedent, model, metaphor, caricature, extrapolation.

Comparisons underlie the acquisition and practice of language and everything else distinctly human.

Analogies can also mislead.

There is some difference between simply stating a resemblance between two things and drawing a conclusion from a resemblance (the former is an analogy, the latter an analogical statement).  Whoever uses it argues by or from analogy.

Sizing up an analogy (1) exactly what is at issue, (2) exactly what is being compared, (3) exactly what are the real similarities and differences.  Next one should be able to either (4) attack half of the comparison, (5) attack or defend the analogy, (6) change it, (7) extend it, or (8) attack the pivot.

- using an analogical argument in support of a point not at issue would be to argue irrelevantly.

When considering a difficult and important analogical argument, one should try to achieve perspective by listing similarities and differences.

Since analogies typically convey more psychological force than logical force any chance to nip a misleading analogy in the bud should not be missed.

If possible, attack a premise.

Instead of wasting words in trying to break an arguments spell, one can sometimes make use of the spell.  One can turn the magic against its perpetrator by extending the analogy.  Thus elaborated, the analogy may actually support a thesis contrary to the one claimed for it, or lead to ridiculous consequences.

An analogical argument can be thought of a “pivoting” on an implied generalisation.  The pivot generalisation, if true, underwrites the argument and, if false, weakens or ruins it.

In an argument from historical analogy, one or more historical situations, together with a present or impending situation are found similar.  The past situation(s) contain an additional characteristic.  The inference is then drawn that the present or impending situation also exhibits the characteristic.  Then an implication for policy is drawn or left to speak for itself.

To behave justly is close to, or is, being fair.  Fairness dictates equal treatment - similar action in similar circumstances.  Therefore much moral argument will be analogical.

defenses usually stress analogy of treatment in analogous situations.

condemnations and entreaties usually stress disanalogy of treatment in disanalogous situations.

Many analogical arguments sometimes lurk in seemingly innocent explanatory metaphors and similes.  They hide beneath veiled references.

The careful reasoner will have developed facility at making implicit comparisons explicit.