Faulty Analogy

Speaking Metaphorically

As an English Literature & Composition teacher, I can confirm that I loooooove metaphors. They're fun and can help a reader make deeper connections. Analogies are when metaphors (or similies) are used to help a speaker make some sort of point. While they can have limited use, they can easily be torn apart by skilled debate opponents because, well, the metaphor is not what's being debated. To avoid using a faulty analogy, stick to the literal topic that is being debated. 


When you rely on comparisons to prove a point instead of simply making the point with relevant material, you risk using a faulty analogy. 


In a faulty analogy, it is argued that one situation is similar to another situation in at least one respect; therefore, it must be similar in another or all respects. 


By nature, most analogies are faulty as they cannot represent the argument better than the argument can represent itself. An analogy, even a very close one, can never prove anything conclusively. They have some value, but not conclusive value.

Example:

Honestly, more people die each year in car accidents than from gun violence. With that said, most logical people understand that cars are not guns. They have two very different purposes and their value to society differs vastly.

While I suppose it is debatable whether cars are too dangerous and we should ban them (No, we shouldn't. Good talk!), the discussion is a completely separate discussion about whether guns should be banned. They're simply two completely different arguments and should be treated as such.


If you're debating guns, talk about GUNS. 

If you're debating cars, talk about CARS.

Example:

I dislike daylight saving time and am so glad we don't have it here in Vietnam. 

I laughed out loud when I first saw this meme; however, this analogy is faulty because... well... uhhh... time isn't a blanket.

Fun meme. I get it, but it doesn't win the argument.

Example:

Declawing a cat is equivalent to cutting a person's fingers off at the first knuckle.

No. No it isn't.

Example: Cliff Barackman fromthe television show: Finding Bigfoot:


INTERVIEWER: "You've never seen a Bigfoot despite years in the field. Does this ever make you question their existence?"


CLIFF: "...I'm not the sort of person that has to see one to believe one. After all, I've never seen an atom, giant squid, or Miles Davis, and I'm pretty sure all of those things are real."


Cliff is making a faulty analogy by implying that not spotting a Sasquatch is no different than not seeing an atom, giant squid, or Miles Davis. Atoms can be seen through an electron microscope, giant squid have been recorded using clear underwater footage (not to mention several dead samples have washed ashore), and there is plenty of RELIABLE footage of Miles Davis performing... not to mention his albums can be purchased on iTunes. If we really wanted to, we could exhume his grave. All of these can be proven to exist or to have existed, but no such proof exists regarding Bigfoot.


Another thing Cliff is misappropriating is where the burden of proof lies. When someone says, "Hey, I saw a Sasquatch!" is it that persons job (aka: burden of proof) to prove what they have seen or is it our job to prove that Sasquatch do not exist? 


In this case, the burden of proof lies with the person making the unproven claim. Cliff is trying to transfer the burden of proof back onto the viewers of Finding Bigfoot when it should stay with him.


That sneaky guy!

Example:

As much as I appreciate the sentiments of this cartoon, our education system educates students to survive in societies that have certain professional expectations. 

We are NOT a multi-species mix of crows, monkeys, penguins, elephants, goldfish, seals, and dogs. 

We are all people, and we all live in similar societies. 

Don't get me wrong, the sentiments of this cartoon are not necessarily without merit, but this limited analogy succeeds only in getting attention to the idea of differentiated instruction. It would not support or prove an argument a real, focused debate about how we should educate our youth.

Example:

Last one, just for fun...