For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin? Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with? Is it more like a coffee shop, or how we handle cocaine? If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl? Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
> For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
> That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
> If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
Okay, that's mostly true, and would be relevant if we were trying a case in court.
But we aren't trying a case in court, we're disagreeing about the nature of reality. When I say "arguments from analogy are fallacious" I mean "analogies don't prove anything about the nature of reality".
> For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin?
You aren't confused about which of these drugs I'm talking about, and I'm not going to entertain a conversation where you pretend you are.
> Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with?
I wouldn't compare my policy solution with an analogy, I would say which drugs I'm talking about.
> If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl?
No, but not because of analogies, because they are two different things that exist in reality.
> Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
No analogies apply, ever, to determining the nature of reality.
> No analogies apply, ever, to determining the nature of reality.
Maybe not in your head. But as soon as you introduce language and shared meaning they do. You don’t even know if the color I call blue appears to me physically the same as it does to you. We can agree that it corresponds to a specific wavelength but we just have to guess if we’re both experiencing it in the same way.
But I digress. That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
> Maybe not in your head. But as soon as you introduce language and shared meaning they do. You don’t even know if the color I call blue appears to me physically the same as it does to you. We can agree that it corresponds to a specific wavelength but we just have to guess if we’re both experiencing it in the same way.
You're posting random unrelated pop-sci at this point.
> That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
"Agreed-upon normative judgments" and "what should be" are not the same thing.
> And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
Well, the way my arguments which don't rely on analogy exist is that I typed them into the text area and pressed "reply".
You're literally trying to argue that something can't happen, which is happening right in front of you.
For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin? Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with? Is it more like a coffee shop, or how we handle cocaine? If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl? Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
And so on. It's analogies all the way down.