- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Proceed from the following definitions:
argument – a statement or group of statements that are used as a proof;
an analogy is a similarity.
Thus, similarity is not an exact match, but only has some features and cannot be a statement.
Therefore, it can't prove it.
The analogy is an argument.
An analogy is not a proof, because external similarity does not mean internal similarity. However! For proof (as a process) an analogy can be used.
Simply, the analogy should be within the framework of the topic under discussion. For example, parents forbid a child to eat a lot of cakes at once, because it is harmful. As proof of harmfulness, three analogies can be given:
an analogy with a balloon that bursts when filled quickly;
an analogy with a person who becomes ill, although he ate not a cream cake, but (conditionally) five kilograms of apples;
an analogy with some chemical reagents that are harmless when ingested in small quantities, but cause poisoning – in large quantities.
All three points are analogies that reproduce any property of eating cakes:
high-volume physical harm;
causing chemical damage in large doses.
This is not proof that a particular child will get sick from eating a particular cake. However, this is an argument for the fact that eating a cake “in one gulp” is very dangerous, even if the specific situation was resolved safely.
I also do not hesitate to spit in the direction of statistics and sociology with the help of an analogy. They are considered sciences. But how do they work?
“We interviewed 1,000 people by voting on the site, 97% of those who voted said that they use the Internet! This means that 97% of the country's citizens use the Internet“
“We looked at how 100 atoms behave in our jar. So similar atoms behave in the same way throughout the universe!»
Humanity is not able to calculate everything and everything: there are not enough physical resources for this. Therefore, modern science is based precisely on the assumptions and principles of similarity, that is, on analogies.
They are not considered evidence. They are not considered a finitely fixed rule. Moreover, they may later be recognized as incorrect, incorrect, or only partially valid. And here's another example:
Physicists discovered a certain principle that applied to all things by the principle of similarity (by analogy, yes). Then they encountered an unsolvable problem or discovered something new that defied the old laws.
And then they opened a new section of mechanics with their own laws, within which new principles of similarity began to operate.
Just as physicists did in the framework of one of the listed mechanics, analogies can be used in the framework of any discussion on a given topic.
Consider my comment as an argument in favor of using analogy as an argument based on analogies🐷
An appropriate analogy is an argument. A misplaced analogy is not.
It can't be an exhaustive proof. But we're talking about argumentation.
It's like drawing a communication diagram on a piece of cardboard the size of a solar system.