On Nov 6, 2008, at 6:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Analogies, metaphors, similes, and explicit comparisons can be
marvelous,
legitimate devices, not in proving things, but in elucidating the
notion you're
trying to convey.
That's the salient point. Many people take an analogy to be some sort
of "proof" or verification of the point being made. It is, as you say,
a demonstration of the point. It's worthwhile to reflect on the word
"proof," which derives from "prove," to test, NOT to verify the truth
of. A printer's proof, for example, is a sheet pulled from the type
(nowadays, just printed from the file) to be tested ("proofread") to
verify that all the typesetter didn't make mistakes or that the
previously morked errors were rectified. The proof of the theorem is
the sequence of math steps that test the correctness of the theorem.
But in common parlance, "proof" has come to signify the demonstration
of accuracy rather than the test itself.
They can be harmful by being too bulky and thus distracting,
and even by being more demandingly complex than the notion they're
trying to
clarify....
Well, it's obvious you're not talking philosophically here. You're
talking like an editor!
By their very nature they have to be chosen carefully for their net
value.
Damnit, are you using a basketball metaphor when we were told
explicitly that sports analogies weren't allowed?
They're never exactly what they are trying to elucidate, and it's
important that none of the differences overwhelms the similarities.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
