Analogy

[essentialsaltes]

Israel : Christianity :: Israel : Islam

This wouldn't fly on the SAT with the same thing in two positions, but if I were to try to build an analogy it would be...

Christianity is a religion based on a religion that had its origins in Israel.
Islam is a religion based on a religion that had its origins in Israel.

Both are true, and the analogy is valid.

 

[mnorian]

This wouldn't fly on the SAT with the same thing in two positions, but if I were to try to build an analogy it would be...

Christianity is a religion based on a religion that had its origins in Israel.
Islam is a religion based on a religion that had its origins in Israel.

Both are true, and the analogy is valid.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you speaking of Israel as a country, as I was constructing the analogy as the religion when it came out of Egypt? As a country, Islam came out of what is now Saudi Arabia. It's been a few years since I was in high school debate class, but I think my analogy was called a "unilateral analogy". Ok, I made that up. , but it sounds plausible. The proper analogy would then be:

Israel : Christianity :: Saudi Arabia : Islam

 

[quatona]

God : humanity :: parent to child ?

 

[essentialsaltes]

--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you speaking of Israel as a country, as I was constructing the analogy as the religion when it came out of Egypt? As a country, Islam came out of what is now Saudi Arabia. It's been a few years since I was in high school debate class, but I think my analogy was called a "unilateral analogy". Ok, I made that up. , but it sounds plausible. The proper analogy would then be:

Israel : Christianity :: Saudi Arabia : Islam

Well, this is why the College Board works (or used to work) so hard on their analogy questions (it also helps that they are multiple choice). Because sometimes there is more than one way to clearly and necessarily connect the items.

Your analogy is (also) certainly valid.

 

[Resha Caner]

Very true. People often use analogies like this for an informal purpose ... and informal logic is (I think) a very interesting subject. If you know your opponent is a great admirer of Washington and federalism, what might you expect his opinion to be of Mussolini and fascism?

No one answered mine as well ... maybe because one feels a bit patronized by the question or because the answer is too obvious or maybe the question doesn't seem interesting.

But I find it very interesting. An admirer of Washington and federalism would likely despise Mussolini and fascism ... and they would resent seeing the two associated in the analogy. They don't want to admit it's a valid analogy, even though it is. But neither can they accuse their opponent of the unspoken insult. So, their only recourse in the debate is to deny the relationship is valid. They must turn to some trivial difference between Washington's relationship to federalism that doesn't exist in Mussolini's relationship to fascism.

One can look at this two ways. One can say: the rules of the analogy have been defined and one must abide by them. If one abides by them, no insult (real or perceived) has been given and the discussion should move on.

Maybe. But those who study informal logic are looking at it differently. Yes, we can invent rules. But why are we ignoring the intuitive rules? Why do so many make the association between Washington & Mussolini? Why do so many realize an unspoken insult has been given? Maybe we should study these rules of informal logic.

One big question of informal logic is: What are people trying to accomplish? There is the negative answer - they are trying to insinuate, deceive, misdirect, etc. But informal logic can be used to positive ends as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Resha Caner

No one answered mine as well ... maybe because one feels a bit patronized by the question or because the answer is too obvious or maybe the question doesn't seem interesting.

But I find it very interesting. An admirer of Washington and federalism would likely despise Mussolini and fascism ... and they would resent seeing the two associated in the analogy. They don't want to admit it's a valid analogy, even though it is. But neither can they accuse their opponent of the unspoken insult. So, their only recourse in the debate is to deny the relationship is valid. They must turn to some trivial difference between Washington's relationship to federalism that doesn't exist in Mussolini's relationship to fascism.

In elaboration of what you state below, Resha, I would amplify it by saying that part of the way in which a person, such as myself, reaches conclusions involving the analysis of an analogy may also be depend on the existential and imminent considerations made by myself, the individual; that is, we may have to factor in the considerations and the nature of those considerations made by the individual regarding the nature of the imposition of said analogical exercise. It might even be that I personally see the exercise as an assumption of 'Modernist' thinking that might be effectively intercepted by Post-Modernist considerations or inquiries: 'Where' are the rules of the analogy? Should their ontological nature be assumed as having displayed themselves to the human inquirer as "intuitive"? Who is the authority who pushes the point that the rules are thereby intuitive, or display exacting logic, etc.?

One can look at this two ways. One can say: the rules of the analogy have been defined and one must abide by them. If one abides by them, no insult (real or perceived) has been given and the discussion should move on.

Maybe. But those who study informal logic are looking at it differently. Yes, we can invent rules. But why are we ignoring the intuitive rules? Why do so many make the association between Washington & Mussolini? Why do so many realize an unspoken insult has been given? Maybe we should study these rules of informal logic.

One big question of informal logic is: What are people trying to accomplish? There is the negative answer - they are trying to insinuate, deceive, misdirect, etc. But informal logic can be used to positive ends as well.