English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This is about analogies used as the means or method used by many to bolster their arguments in philosophy.

Here is some useful info about what makes an argument sound"

A02.6 Soundness
It should be obvious by now that validity is about the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. When we are told that an argument is valid, this is not enough to tell us anything about the actual truth or falsity of the premises or the conclusion. All we know is that there is a logical connection between them, that the premises entail the conclusion.
So even if we are given a valid argument, we still need to be careful before accepting the conclusion, since a valid argument might contain a false conclusion. What we need to check further is of course whether the premises are true. If an argument is valid, and all the premises are true, then it is called a sound argument. Of course, it follows from such a definition that a sound argument must also have a true conclusion.

2007-06-22 07:34:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false, since by definition it is impossible for a valid argument to have true premises and a false conclusion in the same situation. So given that a sound argument is valid and has true premises, its conclusion must also be true. So if you have determined that an argument is indeed sound, you can certainly accept the conclusion.

An argument that is not sound is an unsound argument. If an argument is unsound, it might be that it is invalid, or maybe it has at least one false premise, or both.

see ref entitled Argument Analysis at:

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid1.php

2007-06-22 07:36:02 · update #1

Hey Doctor Y we share a common interest in putting Sophists in their place. I consider many postmodernists as the cuttent version of the famous Greek Sophists Socrates loved to deflate.

2007-06-22 10:00:10 · update #2

7 answers

You are right. An argument should be straight forward and nobody should be wondering what so and so meant. You should have everyone in the same place. If we use analogies in an argument, the audience may come to completely different conclusions from one another.

2007-06-22 07:52:17 · answer #1 · answered by sweetpanther08 6 · 1 0

Analogies should not be used in an argument for the same reason Anecdotal evidence should be thrown out of court! Reason: they can be manipulated. Using analogies is a good way to explain something to someone by way of real life example or a more relevant comparison to something which they are already familiar.

2007-06-22 07:59:13 · answer #2 · answered by lars2682 2 · 1 0

Analogies are very useful in trying to explain and teach things, but you're right, they are not useful in argument.
Its like if you were trying to explain to someone what the Beatles sounded like, you might play them a Beatles song on your guitar. If you were arguing that the Beatles were a better band than the Rolling Stones, you would not be able to simply play a Beatles song at them and expect them to understand your argument.
There. My answer, in analogy form.

2007-06-22 07:41:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Analogies are useful in trying to help others understand what you are trying to explain.

Also, I don't know what you mean by analogies are easily falsified. How does that make them different than anything else people say? Pretty much anything can be falsified. I still wouldn't conclude there is no purpose in speaking.

2007-06-27 09:32:24 · answer #4 · answered by treebird 6 · 0 0

there are more ways to argue than logic. you can use passion or emotion and what the greeks called "ethos" -- in which the character of the arguer can help win the debate. people hire big name lawyers for ethos. advertisers use ethos and i think analogies would apply to ethos as well. no its not a logical argument. most people don't understand logic anway -- but if you get a great orator up on a box in front of the right mob and he says " we have to kill canadians because they are like flies infiltrating our sacred ground with their liberal filth" -- then you can see the power in ethos.

2007-06-22 08:13:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Thinking in analogies is not logically sound.

Logic is one way of getting at the truth.

It is NOT the only way.

Sometimes it the WORST way.

2007-06-22 08:25:00 · answer #6 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0 1

it makes us think critically and analyze the "given facts"*
it can also be used to make us focus our attention elsewhere and give them the timing they need to ruin one's arguement



*given because even facts can be falsified and manipulated and it's very useful in deceiving unsuspicious minds

2007-06-28 06:00:02 · answer #7 · answered by mirian77 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers