In Chapter 12 of Epstein, ALL of part B. “An Example” really just blew my mind. It was like reading a never ending chain of rebuttals in an argument. It really went on for about two pages critiquing the strength and validity of the firemen-soldier argument. This entire section really goes to show that your point may never really be proven, as long as the person you are arguing with doesn’t over-analyze your premises in depth!
It was kind of crazy. It all started with the comparison:
“We don’t blame firemen for fires.
Firemen and fires are like soldier and wars.
Therefore, we should not blame soldiers for war.”
Epstein even stated “This sounds pretty reasonable.” Then he went on for another page and a half asking... And? So what?
When reasoning by analogy, you must be specific, down to the nitty gritty similarities between the two things you are comparing. The more specific (of course with relevance), the better the argument will be.
Key things in analogy reasoning: Details and relevance, and avoid the dubious.
No comments:
Post a Comment