Analogies are not reason. They are just a case of one thing reminding you of another.
-
-
As I've pointed out a number of times, nothing applied to the real world is "exclusively logic-driven." You have to map from the real world to the elements of logic formalism and back. Involves an assertion about the equality (or similarity) of elements of logic and real world.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think you're drawing dichotomies that don't really exist. If the question is "Ever see an argument won with an analogy?" then the answer is "Every weekday I'm in court". I don't agree that you can win with an "illogical analogy". That sounds inherently unstable. Big fan btw.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s a fallacy to says precedent are analogies. Precedent in court rely on laws defining rules in a context that guarantees all related court case to have to follow similar decision. Analogies are made entirely post facts /wo any mechanic to put bias in check.
-
So no, court arguments aren’t won on analogy, they’re made on precedents in the context of pre existing laws. Analogies in cout would be comparing that white collar tax fraud to that bank heist. Something they never do (I know bc I am frustrated they don’t)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.