I did a post the other day that used an anecdote from my real life to illustrate a point about the concept of self-defense. Since the point was relevant to the debate over the fighting in Gaza, I tried to explicitly say that I didn't want the story to be read as an analogy since I don’t believe in trying to conduct arguments by analogy. Well along comes Michael Moynihan to point out that the facts in my story don’t precisely parallel the situation in Gaza.i gotta say, i don't really understand the distinction yglesias makes in the last paragraph. isn't "offering an example designed to prove a narrow point" what arguments by analogy are all about? of course an analogy is not identical to the analogized situation, that's why it's an analogy!
This, though, is why I don’t believe in analogies. If you make an argument that hinges on an analogy then people fire back by pointing out some respect in which the situation you described isn't precisely analogous to the thing you’re arguing about. It then becomes a contest to specify the analogy so as to exactly mirror the situation you’re debating. In which case you may as well just debate the situation. Long story short—these analogy fights are stupid.
But to repeat, I wasn't offering an analogy. I was, rather, offering an example designed to prove a narrow point, specifically that a claim of self-defense doesn't operate as a blanket license to wreak destruction. Granting that the situation in Israel isn't identical to the situation on the bike (and the differences cut both ways—the blame in the bicycle case lies 100 percent with the rock thrower, which isn't the case in the Holy Land) the point is simply that the particular mode of argument that relies on saying "self-defense!" does not, in fact, suffice to vindicate Israel's actions.
also while yglesias is right that most responses to arguments by analogy involve pointing out the ways that the analogy and actual situation differ, both the crafting of the analogy and the pointing out where the analogy goes wrong are still useful exercises. they both reveal what elements of the original story each party thinks are important.
analogies are attempts to pull issues out of their context to eliminate some of the messiness of real life and to highlight what is perceived to be the real issue. but context is important. which bits of the context you don't include in the analogy reveal what factors in the messy real life situation you think are key and which you think are not. when analogies are criticized, the criticism highlights the perceived omission from the analogizer's thinking, thus highlighting the critic's own views of what the relevant factors are. which is why i think arguments by analogy are useful, even if they rarely conclusively settle any serious debate. they help clarify the issues.
