There is nothing that is a perfect comparison to something else, short of being the thing itself. Throughout my time in the forum, and perhaps because others come with a debate mindset, I've noticed that I am unable to make a comparison without it being called erroneous.
It seems as though to compare two things at all, makes the other party claim it is a false equivalency, a false comparison, a straw man, that they are in no way, shape, or form, the same thing. They start listing all the ways in which the two things differ, and therefore conclude that the comparison is wrong.
I say that this is the result of having a debate mindset, because in a debate the whole purpose is to win. You have something to gain by calling a comparison false. However, I think people are less strict when they're just having a conversation. They are able to realize that a comparison is just that, a comparison. It is being able to look at the similarities of two things, while being cognizant that differences exist. You ought to be able to compare a plane to a bird on the basis that they both fly, without being told it is a false comparison because one eats seeds and the other needs fuel.
So my question to those who have such a debate mindset. What do you consider to be a valid comparison? Is there a ratio of similarities to differences that must exist first before you accept a comparison?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
A comparison is not right or wrong, it's either a good comparison or a flawed comparison, and I find apologists on the whole are overly fond of analogies. Often using them when they;re unnecessary, father and parent analogies are the most common and the worst, as comparing a deity with limitless knowledge and power to a human parent is a deeply flawed comparison for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure I agree about debate forums either, whilst some people may want to win, perhaps even more than they want to discuss, this smacks a little of the ad hominem to me as it focuses on the person rather then the argument, so what if they want to win, what they say is either valid or not, and the motive changes nothing. Nor is a discussion always valid if it's based on an obviously false premise, for instance a denial of known scientific facts in a chat room forum is pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned, valid scientific objections would get peer reviewed and change the scientific viewpoint if they cited research and evidence that withstood proper scrutiny.
Creationists seem not to know this, or choose to ignore it, or make absurd claims that science is biased and a conspiracy is keeping creationist superstitions out of science.
"What do you consider to be a valid comparison? "
Not enough information, that's like asking what is nice to eat. If a comparison is claimed to be flawed then people usually say why in my experience, if their objection is irrational then point out why.
Its not an ad hominem. Had I said their objection is wrong on the basis of stemming from a debate mindset, perhaps it would qualify. In contrast I'm observing this tendency, asking myself why it occurs, and arriving at a debate mindset as a possible explanation.
I'm not sure how my question doesn't provide enough information. Is a good comparisons something like porn, where you can't define what it is, but know it when you see it?
"Its not an ad hominem. Had I said their objection is wrong on the basis of stemming from a debate mindset, perhaps it would qualify. In contrast I'm observing this tendency, asking myself why it occurs, and arriving at a debate mindset as a possible explanation."
So you think they're assessments were correct then? In that case I'm at a loss as to why you need a second explanation for their claim at all, beyond it being true?
"I'm not sure how my question doesn't provide enough information. Is a good comparisons something like porn, where you can't define what it is, but know it when you see it?"
I'm not sure why you're not sure why your question doesn't provide enough information? For instance it depends what your comparing porn to, and why? So listing good comparisons out of context is pretty meaningless. Let me try an example, a good comparison is cheesecake and trifle, but only if your comparing desserts or desserts I like, or types of food that are desserts etc etc, what has my example taught you about why your comparisons are often cited as fallacious? Not much would be my guess. Hence asking what are good comparisons is too broad a question. What are you trying to compare and why do you think the comparison helps validate something? For instance I gave a specific comparison apologists often use, and why i think it is fallacious.
If my question is too broad, it is because I am asking for an all-purpose rule for which comparisons are or aren't good. As far as I can tell, it is fallacious to call a comparison bad on account of its differences. All comparisons, almost by definition, come with differences. Comparisons are made because of their similarities alone, and therefore, it is solely those similarities which must be addressed.
The only bad comparison, in my opinion, is the one whose similarities are incorrect.
"As far as I can tell, it is fallacious to call a comparison bad on account of its differences."
Not necessarily and I gave a commonly used analogy in religious apologetics where the comparison is fallacious, and explained why.
"The only bad comparison, in my opinion, is the one whose similarities are incorrect."
So the comparison is fallacious when the things being compared are different in ways that invalidate the comparison, pretty much what I said. It's absurd for example to compare the behaviour of a human parent to it's child with the actions of a deity with limitless power and knowledge towards it's created animals, yet religious apologists make this fallacious comparison all the time. Some comparisons are simply and obviously fallacious. All we can do is judge them when they are used.
John 6IX Breezy,
"Is a good comparisons something like porn, where you can't define what it is, but know it when you see it?"
If you were really hungry you could eat some lawn grass or else you could eat a fresh donut. They are both food but which one would you eat if given the choice between them?
It sounds to me, John, like you want a pass on having things you write questioned.
That's how it sounded to me as well, that was my best attempt at being subtle.
For an analogy to be valid, they must be directly comparable in scope, and used solely as a shortcut to getting a third party to understand a concept that the first person has observed themselves.
It is not valid for example to say that the universe must have had a creator because everything in our immediate experience has a cause.
Comparisons are a simple tactic of christians and apologists. They like to compare things that are remotely alike It has nothing to do with a mindset at all unless YOU are the one making the false comparison. Yes, debating is a contest that one seeks to win and crying over the fact that the evidence that YOU brought John was just unacceptable is just whining about not winning.