On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:51:57 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:iuh4iv0ps65ql5qita644ei8925mich1e8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:11:42 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Analogy: We can define the term "martian" as "an kind of life
on mars". Defining the term does not presuppose that martians
actually exist. We can ask "do martians exist?". And if I find
"life on mars" then I can be certain that I have found a martian.
We can define the term "God" as "the creator of the universe".
Defining the term does not presuppose that God actually exists.
We can ask "does God exist?". And if I find the creator of
the univers I can be certain that I have found God.
Please try not to use analogies.
It has already been pointed out that they aren't tools in an argument
but at most only show us how you see something - which we already know
anyway.
I decided to search the Internet for information on Argumentation by
analogy. Using Google and searching on "argument by analogy" I found
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
Here's a quote from that page:
Analogical Reasoning
The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or
more things are similar in some respects and concludes
that they are probably also similar in some further respect.
Not every analogy is an argument; we frequently use such
comparisons simply to explain or illustrate what we mean.
But arguments by analogy are common, too.
And as far as conclusions reached by analogical reasoning
the site says:
In general, arguments by analogy are improved when
their conclusions are modest with respect to their premises.
So they (analogies) are tools of argument.
So what?
Your analogies weren't argument. You were wasting everybody's time.
Oh!! So *MY* analogies are a waste of everyone's time
but *YOUR* analogies are examples or illustrations of
your point.
So then don't go around saying "they [analogies] aren't tools
in an argument".
No, moron, I NEVER PRETENDED MINE WERE ARGUMENTS AND ALWAYS SAID
THEY WERE TO ILLUSTRATE HOW *I* SAW IT. Are you even capable of
understanding the difference? I ALREADY KNOW HOW YOU SEE THIMGS -
YOUR ANALOGIES WERE UN-NECESSARY.
.
