Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal God! Awful 2's Journal: Why I don't argue by analogy on /. 27

Journal by God! Awful 2

Over the last few years, I have noticed a disturbing trend: /. readers really like to argue by analogy. State an argument using facts or statistics or common sense and you're likely to get an analogy in return.

"Open source software is like a car." "Copying music is like reading a book." "Source code is speech."

Well, I'm sick of it. The problem with arguments by analogy is quite simply that they aren't logically valid. The fact that two things are alike in one aspect does not necessarily imply that they are alike in another. In many cases they are, but you have to understand that when you are debating a moot point, the "my analogy is better than your analogy" defence isn't going to cut it. A "preponderance of the analogies" is not going to produce a verdict.

This is not to say that analogies aren't good for anything; they make an effective educational tool. I had a high school physics teacher who was very fond of describing an electric circuit by analogy to a system of water pipes. The width of the pipes corresponded to the resistivity of the wire, pumps were like batteries, and the height of the water above ground was its voltage. But it is essential to understand the limits of the analogy. [Resistive] electric circuits and water circuits match up nicely because they are both first order systems; therefore, the analogy only holds so long as you are comparing first order effects. There is no guarantee that I'm going to get a sane result if I try to add inductors and capacitors to the water circuit or turbulence to the electric circuit.

Analogies work best in situations where the audience is receptive to your ideas, such as the above teacher-student relationship, but they are practically useless as a debating tool. Debates about social policy are the worst because they are so subjective. If you use an analogy then your opponent will nitpick it, likely claiming that it is a "false analogy" because it doesn't correspond in some minor aspect (that you consider irrelevant but he claims is paramount). If your opponent uses an analogy, chances are that you can reduce it to a straw man, a slippery slope, or plain old over-simplification. In an atmosphere such as this one, I feel it is best to avoid analogy-based arguments and stick to the specific issue at hand.

Let's take an example: "Sharing music is not stealing. Stealing involves depriving someone of property." On the face of it, this looks like a semantic argument. (Common usage of the word "steal" has changed over the years to the point where we can talk about "stealing an idea", but on /. it is a loaded word.) But if you look deeper, you will see that this is also a refutation of an analogy in disguise. What your opponent is really saying is that pirating music is not analagous to stealing toasters because of all-important reason X (where X is his semantic argument).

On one hand, you could attempt to prove to your opponent that his definition of stealing is arbitrary by making the perfectly reasonable observation that if you hired a guy to fix your roof and then refused to pay him, that wouldn't be depriving him of property either. (Most /.ers would consider this case to be morally wrong.) Unfortunately, that argument would be the wrong approach, not because your observation lacks merit, but simply because using it would invite an analogy war.

Of course, once you have avoided the analogy trap, you still have to follow through with a coherent argument. Instead of analogies, I would suggest all of the following approaches: facts ("Whether or not you call it 'stealing', the fact is that music piracy is illegal."), statistical analysis ("The observation that music sales increased during Napster's operation is misleading because it doesn't take into account the effect of statistical lag."), common sense ("Kazaa searches may generate a lot of false positives at the moment, but there are some obvious ways to improve their algorithm."), evaluation of human nature ("Why do you think Americans will donate money to support a band when they don't even donate 1% of their income to charity?"), and appeals to political orientation ("Times change. Intellectual property falls within the spirit of capitalism, regardless of whether Adam Smith ever wrote about it in the 1700s.").

Therefore, I hereby vow not to use analogies on /. Should I feel the temptation to analogize, I will rephrase the example to explicitly state my logic. If you catch me in analogy, flame on. And of course I encourage you to join the boycott.

Note: Misuse of analogies is only one of a wide variety of false arguments that are common on /.. The next worst offender is probably slippery slopes. I will discuss these in a future journal entry.

-a

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why I don't argue by analogy on /. More

Why I don't argue by analogy on /.

Comments Filter:
  • Arguing without analogies on /. is like trying to milk a penguin without using gloves. It just won't work...


    • Arguing without analogies on /. is like trying to milk a penguin without using gloves. It just won't work...
      Hmm... if I get the gist of your analogy correctly what you are saying is that "arguing on /. just won't work..."

      That's probably true.

      -a
  • "Why do you think Americans will donate money to support a band when they don't even donate 1% of their income to charity?"

    That is actually arguing by analogy. You are comparing charitable behavior to voluntary payment for services.
    Otherwise, I'm all for it.


    • That is actually arguing by analogy. You are comparing charitable behavior to voluntary payment for services.
      I've thought about this. I didn't pledge to avoid analogies altogether, only to avoid arguing by analogy. In this case, I was actually using that stat as evidence of human behaviour, which is a type of argument that I said I would use.

      -a
  • There is an old Turkish parable that has some relevance to both arguing by analogy, stealing, and analogies about stealing.

    A judge heard the argument of two men, a baker and a beggar.

    The baker told his story: "Judge, I observed this man standing near the tent where I sell my goods. I asked him what he was doing, and he admitted that he was standing there to enjoy the smell of my bread. I demand payment! He has directly benefitted from me making the bread I spent money and work on. I know he has the means to pay me."

    The judge looked torward the begger, who responded: "Judge, it is true that I enjoyed the smell of his bread, but I deprived him of nothing! He sold every loaf that day. At what point must people begin paying, for I was not the only person to smell the bread in the bazaar? I do have the money to pay for a loaf, but it is most of what I have to my name."

    The judge sat back for just a moment, then leaned forward and looked at the beggar.

    "Give me the money for a loaf of bread."

    The beggar sadly placed a few coins into the judge's hand, and the judge leaned over next to the baker. The baker looked very confused as the judge held the coins and shook his hand vigorously.

    "Did you hear the sound of the coins in my hand?" asked the judge.

    The baker nodded.

    "Then the debt is paid. Like the purchase is the payment."

    The relevance is multi-layered, like Neapolitan ice cream.
    • You see, this is exactly why I don't like to argue by analogy. By turning your counter-example into a story, you gloss over the most salient points. You deliberately chose a situation in which it is totally obvious that the presence of the beggar is doing no damage to the baker. Of course, he might be scaring off customers or something, but this is not germane to the issue (however, these are the kinds of silly tangents you tend to go off on when you argue by analogy).

      Speaking specifically about music pirates, I believe they cause damage (lost sales) to the labels in three ways:

      a) Most people are not able to correctly evaluate whether or not they would have bought the music.
      b) Some people will pirate the music whether or not they would have bought it.
      c) Access to free music reduces its value as a commodity.

      Your beggar analogy ignores all this in its tacit assumption that music pirates are not doing any damage to the labels and artists.

      -a
      • While I agree with free exchange of music, I disagree with the Turkish story as well. However, I take issue with your response. You completely missed the error that the value of the bread isn't wholly contained in its smell. In fact, the smell isn't even a good percentage of its worth to most people. To most people, the worth of bread is derived from its sustaining capacity, i.e. eating it. The worth of music, however, is derived from listening to it. That is where you should have pointed out the error in the analogy.

        • You completely missed the error that the value of the bread isn't wholly contained in its smell. That is where you should have pointed out the error in the analogy.
          Well, I still think the error was in using an analogy at all. In replying to an analogy, I can do one of two things:

          1. Decide what the central message of the analogy is and reply to that.
          2. Try and show all the ways in which the actual situation does not fit the analogy.

          The message of my jounal entry was that approach 2 is a trap, designed to ensnare you in meaningless arguments. I decided that the central message of the story was that "The beggar was never going to buy the bread anyway, so no damage was done." Therefore, I focused my reply on that argument alone.

          -a
    • Interesting. So did the judge keep the beggers money?
  • The fact that two things are alike in one aspect does not necessarily imply that they are alike in another.

    It is the aspect in witch two things are alike that people are using in an analogy! Sheesh.

    • It is the aspect in witch two things are alike that people are using in an analogy! Sheesh.
      No, you are the twit. When you argue by analogy, you claim that two things are alike in at least two aspects. The prepositional logic looks like: "A1 is like B1" therefore "A2 is/should be like B2". The problem is that typically one of the comparisons is generally accepted and the other is moot.

      e.g.
      A1=Cars are a consumer item.
      B1=Software is a consumer item.
      A2=When my car breaks down, I can take it to whichever mechanic I want.
      B2=When my software breaks, I should be able to hire anyone I want to fix it.

      You see? The comparison "A1 is like B1" is generally accepted, but "A2 implies B2" is not.

      -a
      • ... is that really such a silly argument?

        Why CAN'T I hire anyone I want to fix my software?
        • A1=Cars are a consumer item.
          B1=Software is a consumer item.
          A2=When my car breaks down, I can take it to whichever mechanic I want.
          B2=When my software breaks, I should be able to hire anyone I want to fix it.
          ... is that really such a silly argument?
          Why CAN'T I hire anyone I want to fix my software?
          It's a silly argument because it doesn't logically follow. It's possible to reach a correct conclusion through an incorrect process. You can also reach all sorts of dumb conclusions as well:

          1. Software is like a car. Cars have headlights, therefore software should have headlights.

          2. Software is like a car. If your software breaks, you have to rely on the official vendor, therefore when your car breaks you should have to take it to the dealer.

          That's the problem with the analogy argument. I can "prove" what you wanted to hear and it sounds logical to you, but I can also prove the exact opposite.

          -a
          • I see your point, but in this case we are dealing with consumer items, not cars.

            1. Software is like a car because they are both consumer items.

            2. I shouldn't be required by law to bring any of my consumer items back to the manufacturer to be repaired, that's borederline monopolistic (if not actually monopilistic), and they will charge me as much as they can, due to this.

            You need to realize that most analogies are created in /. arguments to explain a point of view or an opinion, to show a path of reasoning. They're not trying to state facts.

            I do agree, however, some people take it too far:
            RMS is like Clippy, they're both nosy and annyoing, they never sut up, and they never shower.
            Heh.

            • You need to realize that most analogies are created in /. arguments to explain a point of view or an opinion, to show a path of reasoning. They're not trying to state facts.
              And they would be fine to show a path of reasoning if you are then able to show why the path of reasoning is correct. The problem is that many /. readers also have trouble seeing grey areas and making fine distinctions. To this type of mentality, the analogy *is* the argument (not just a path of reasoning), because distinguishing between the two scenarios would involve drawing an arbitrary line.

              2. I shouldn't be required by law to bring any of my consumer items back to the manufacturer to be repaired, that's borederline monopolistic (if not actually monopilistic), and they will charge me as much as they can, due to this.
              Do you see how much more succinct and coherent the argument is when you phase it this way? (At least, IMHO.) And note how statement 1 involving the car-software comparison is completely irrelevant to the idea. When you state the argument in this way, we can finally have an intelligent discussion.

              I agree that forcing the comsumer to take items back to the manufacturer is borderline monopolistic. However, what many people don't realize is that some limited forms of monopoly and collusion are necessary for capitalism to function properly.

              I have noticed that a lot of /. readers have a blind faith in capitalism, to the point where they think they can incorporate a socialistic system and the free market will still prevail. But the fact is that unregulated capitalism suffers from a tragedy of the commons, which is (ironically) the same rule of game theory that explains why communism won't work.

              I believe that government regulations need to take into account the specific circumstances of the industry in order to determine when a monopoly (or collusion) is good, and when it would be bad. As it is, the regulators were able to make some fine distinctions. Having a monopoly on the distribution of your software is okay, but it is illegal for Microsoft to leverage their dominance in one area to gain a monopoly in another.

              Car manufacturers have the ability to make a substantial profit by selling cars, and they also have a reasonable opportunity to make money fixing them, even without a monopoly. Simply put, software companies don't. Without copyright, they are trapped in a business model that is popular on /., but which many disinterested observers consider to be a flight of fancy.

              -a
      • Let's try this:

        1. A rock in space breaks, I should be able to hire anyone i want to fix it.

        2. My software breaks, I should be able to hire anyone i want to fix it.

        There are similarities between a rock in space and my software, but that is beside the point.

        And last but not least.

        You see? The comparison "A1 is like B1" is generally accepted, but "A2 implies B2" is not.

        In nazi germany it was generally accepted that jews should be killed, that does not mean that that is how things are supposed to be.

        • 1. A rock in space breaks, I should be able to hire anyone i want to fix it.
          2. My software breaks, I should be able to hire anyone i want to fix it.
          There are similarities between a rock in space and my software, but that is beside the point.
          If the similarities between a rock in space and your software are irrelevant then the above is not an analogy. Are you arguing that you should be able to hire anyone you want to fix your software because you can hire anyone you want to fix a rock in space (which incidently isn't true)? Or are you just saying that you should be able to hire anyone you want to fix your software? (which isn't an analogy)

          > You see? The comparison "A1 is like B1" is generally accepted, but "A2 implies B2" is not.

          In nazi germany it was generally accepted that jews should be killed, that does not mean that that is how things are supposed to be.
          Heading invariable towards Godwin's law, are we?

          Anyway, you're proving my point. Just because something is commonly accepted doesn't mean it's true. And just because something is commonly accepted for cars (or rocks in space) doesn't mean it's true for software as well.

          -a
  • Slashdot is too overrun by arguments nowadays, and that's probably why people are turning to analogy. On a public forum, you can't win; no one can ever have the "last word." Facts can be proved wrong, but opinions and attitudes rarely get changed. Analogy is simply another tool of attack. Most /.'ers don't care about having a good argument, they just care about having an argument, and analogies make (seemingly) great arguments that are very often riddled with holes (as you have explained).

    *longs for the good old days*

    I would just join kuro5hin as it is a smaller crowd, but that smaller crowd seems to be the *more* opinionated types. Oh well, heh.

    Very good explanation of the flaws of argument by analogy, though. "Piracy" is an analogy to me, still; however, popular definition (or is it media propagation?) may be changing that (it will still take a few hundred years for high school English teachers to catch up though ;).


    • On a public forum, you can't win; no one can ever have the "last word."
      Well, no one ever really wins arguments in real life either. The exception would be if you had an organized debate with a panel of judges.

      Facts can be proved wrong, but opinions and attitudes rarely get changed
      Well, analogies to support a fact are nowhere near as bad as analogies to support an opinion. However, I disagree that opinions don't change. People's attitudes change gradually when they are exposed to other opinions (but quick enough for you to win the argument). The problem is that exposure to opinions is enough to do it; it doesn't really matter if the opinion is defensible.

      Most /.'ers don't care about having a good argument, they just care about having an argument, and analogies make (seemingly) great arguments that are very often riddled with holes (as you have explained).
      I think the moderation system is partially to blame. Repeating popular opinions is a good way to get modded up. I remember I once caught a troll who was karma whoring by reposting messages from old stories that had previously been modded up.

      Very good explanation of the flaws of argument by analogy, though. "Piracy" is an analogy to me, still; however, popular definition (or is it media propagation?) may be changing that (it will still take a few hundred years for high school English teachers to catch up though ;).
      Words can have more than one meaning. Music "theft" is only an analogy if you choose it to twist it that way, but the problem is I know people will. I don't think "piracy" has the samme problem, since literally comparing music piracy to bucaneering would be silly. Still, I feel as if there's an element of newspeak involved; I have to call it something, as it's simply too awkward to write "copyright violations" every time.

      -a
  • "Source code is speech" is not an analogy. It's not comparing source code to speech, it's saying source code IS speech in the same way that flag-burning is speech and letters to the editor are speech. It's saying that source code should receive the same first-amendment free-speech protection that other forms of speech enjoy.
    • I beg to differ. Source code is clearly not a form of speech. The first amendment only talks about freedom of speech, the press, religion, protest, and assembly. The courts decided that speech is still speech if you write it down, and flag burning was arguably covered as a form of protest.

      Anyway, the courts decided (presumably by analogy) that the right to free speech extended to all forms of expression. They were probably correct in doing so because that appeared to be the fundamental intention of the clause.

      An extension of the 1st amendment to cover source code would also be by analogy, but this time it wouldn't really be in the spirit of the clause.

      -a
      • I beg to differ. Source code is clearly not a form of speech.

        This may come as a shock to you, but your opinion on this matter is not relevent. The ninth circuit ruled in Berstein vs. DOJ [eff.org] that source code is speech. "[W]e hold that the challenged regulations constitute a prior restraint on speech that offends the First Amendment." Summarizing the rulings of lower courts, they wrote "The district court found that the Source Code was speech protected by the First Amendment, see Bernstein v. Department of State." Judge Kaplan didn't see things the same way in the 2600 case but it's hard to call anything "justice" where the MPAA is involved.

        You may think of yourself as more enlightened than the justices of the ninth circuit in matters of logic and argumentation. Perhaps you should write them a letter informing them that what they really meant to say is that the first amendment covers source code only by analogy, and also that their decision was not in the spirit of the first amendment. Before making the latter claim you may wish to visit Dave Touretzky's famous gallery of DeCSS descramblers [cmu.edu] and form an opinion about what point exactly communication of an algorithm ceases to be speech.

        • The ninth circuit ruled in Berstein vs. DOJ [eff.org] that source code is speech. "[W]e hold that the challenged regulations constitute a prior restraint on speech that offends the First Amendment."
          That's because lawyers have created a new definition of "speech" that encompasses anything covered by the first amendment. This is the danger of argument by analogy. First they decided that speech was analagous to all forms of expression, then they decided that source code could be considered a form of expression, even though 99% of the time it isn't.

          Before making the latter claim you may wish to visit Dave Touretzky's famous gallery of DeCSS descramblers [cmu.edu] and form an opinion about what point exactly communication of an algorithm ceases to be speech.
          Slippery slope arguments do not impress me. These are all concocted examples.

          -a
          • Slippery slope arguments do not impress me. These are all concocted examples.

            This page is not designed to impress you. It is designed to force you, as an opponent of source code receiving first amendment protection, to partition these descramblers into two sets: those which should receive first amendment protection and those which should not. The point is that you cannot reasonably do this. Since any of the descramblers can be trivially converted to source code, protecting any kind of expression is equivalent to protecting source code.

            This is not a theoretical argument. To get around the US government's export restrictions on cryptography software, the PGP International [pgpi.org] project printed the PGP source code in a book in 1997, exported that, then OCR'd it once it was out of the country.
            • The page doesn't "impress" (as in "persuade") me. I told you that I don't believe in the validity of slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments are useful for mathematical reasoning, but they are not valid when applied to social policy. So in other words, I agree that there is no exact point at which you can draw the line, but I do not conclude that this forces us to choose one of the extremes.

              Fortunately, many of the ambiguous cases are concocted examples that only appear in geek thought experiments. In general, these arbitrary distinctions detract from what I consider to be the important factor, which is the intent of the source code.

              -a

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close