Question

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)

"Perfect analogy" fallacy

The website Philosophy News has some entries on logical fallacies, and this one stood out to me. It's the reverse of the weak analogy - in that fallacy, two things are said to be analogous, but they are not really like each other. In this fallacy, the analogy is rejected for not being 'good enough', with the implication that in order to be good enough, the analogues have to be identical. This however, would make any comparison pointless - it's like comparing the letter A to the letter A!

E.g.

Jessica: If we regulate car ownership in this country, then we should regulate guns.

Harry: But a gun is a gun and a car is a car. You can't compare those two things; they're different.

Although this might not qualify for an entry in its own right, it could be added under weak analogy.
asked on Monday, Aug 22, 2022 11:19:21 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I have seen this used many times when it makes sense. Typically, it is when people are, as you said, offering weak analogies. I have a difficult time seeing this as a fallacy. It seems more of a lack of understanding of what an analogy is and how it works. We have seen this with the "you can't compare covid to the flu" people. Of course you can! What one can't do, is claim two things are similar when they are not. So when people say "You can't compare X with Y" I really think they are just not being precise with language. They really mean that the comparison made was weak or perhaps there are so many differences (or differences of such significance) that the comparison is pointless.

posted on Monday, Aug 22, 2022 11:44:16 AM
...
1
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

I agree that it should be mentioned because people use that kind of objection to play it dumb. It's like strawman in a sense that they purposefully misinterpret what is being said, i.e "analogous or equivalent" to being "equal". And even when you explain the difference between "equivalent" and "equal", they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the analogy and usually they respond again with the phrase "No, they're totally different" and also may follow-up with another strawman. So I think it should be added. Usually it's not just poor communication or misunderstanting. It's either intentional, in which case it is a fallacious tactic or when it's unintentional that means it's a fallacy that confuses them, so why not include it? 

Thank you Rationalissimus of the Elenchus for bringing this up! I had never heard it, didn't know it had a name, but I've dealt with it many, many times from people who just wanted to continue to believe what they were believing and ignore the contradiction in their thinking. Just another tactic to hide their denial. 

posted on Tuesday, Aug 23, 2022 01:01:59 PM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Yeah, there's a genuine distinction between people who (unfortunately) don't get analogies, and those who see the logic but remain in denial.

As I like to say - "not every difference makes a difference". Two things being 'different' in a way does not mean they can't be compared at all.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Aug 23, 2022 07:33:02 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Jorge
1

Perhaps we could tweak the definition of argument from fallacy because what I understood from the article, is that perfect analogies sometimes proceed with a fallacy fallacy. We might not have, however, a fallacy in the original argument. Instead, the fallacy is "appended" by the person committing the perfect analogy fallacy, and then proceeds to argue from fallacy. 

Example: 
Person 1: You shouldn't drink too much coffee. It might be harmful to your body. Would you really drink soda every day?
Person 2: Coffee is not like soda. I'm gonna continue with my tenth cup.

Identify the principle: unrestrained intake of any kind of drink is harmful to your body.
Has this principle being rejected by person 2? If the answer is no, then that person has committed a perfect analogy fallacy. Moreover, since person 2 went ahead with the decision, he/she also committed a fallacy fallacy. This is done, however, by appending a fallacy to the original argument. 
answered on Tuesday, Aug 23, 2022 09:58:45 PM by Jorge

Jorge Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Effectively; "perfect analogy" isn't always an independent fallacy - it's often an extension of the argument from fallacy, itself a form of fallacious reasoning.

Interesting analysis!

posted on Friday, Aug 26, 2022 04:23:26 PM
...
Dr. Richard
0

Harry and Jessica are talking past each other and will not communicate at this rate. Harry should ask Jessica for the premises she uses to come to her conclusion. This is poor communication. 

answered on Tuesday, Aug 23, 2022 12:34:03 PM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments