The fallacy of false analogy

Fallacies are arguments that at first glance appear to be valid but actually are not. In the case of false analogy, it is an argument that is based on irrelevant or misleading comparisons. This type of fallacy is also known as faulty analogy, weak analogy, faulty comparison, metaphor as argument, and analog fallacy. The term comes from the Latin word fallacia , which means deceit, trick, or artifice.

Madsen Pirie, author of How to win every argument (“How to win all arguments”), points out that “The analogical fallacy consists in assuming that things that are similar in one respect must be similar in others. A comparison is made on the basis of what is known and proceeds to assume that the unknown parts must also be similar.

Analogies are commonly used to explain in a simple way some complex idea. Using analogies in this sense does not present any problem. However, when the arguments have no relevant relationship and are used extensively or conclusively, we are facing a fallacy.

The fallacy of mind as computer

From a descriptive point of view, comparing the human mind to a computer can be useful in explaining how the mind performs certain perceptual and cognitive tasks. However, this comparison leaves out all the human aspects that differentiate us from machines. Creativity, sexuality, family life, culture, etc., are elements that should not be left aside when we seek answers to human behavior.

Studying human behavior as a series of responses to internal computer-like programming would inevitably lead us down the path of false analogy fallacies.

How to avoid falling into the false analogy

Due to the widespread use of analogies in everyday life, it is important to ask the following two questions to make sure that we are not dealing with a fallacy.

1.- Are the basic similarities greater and more significant than the obvious differences?

2.- Am I ignoring important differences?

The answers can stop the wrong reasoning for a moment and show the weakness of the argument, thus exposing it as a fallacy.

There are also certain rules for an ideal argumentation that should be followed to avoid the use of fallacies of any kind:

1.- The argument must focus on the thesis, it must not deviate.

2.- The implicit premises must be made explicit when arguing.

3.- The formulation of the arguments must be as clear as possible.

4.- The losing party must change its initial position and have no doubts about the thesis defended.

The age of false analogies

Many agree that we are living in an era in which false analogy fallacies are all too common. Advertising campaigns and political messages, for example, use the false analogy to achieve a desired effect on the audience. In this case, the aim is to persuade people to transfer the feeling of certainty they have about a topic to another unknown topic or about which they still do not have an opinion.

An example of these would be comparing any form of commercial, business, or personal attack to terrorist attacks in the United States. The comparison of the treatment of animals with the treatment of Jews, homosexuals and other groups during the Nazi era can also be considered wrong. This comparison, in addition to being fallacious, benefits from the feeling of guilt and from including a controversial and highly emotional historical situation. In this way, it seeks to transfer the feeling of rejection, fear or indignation from one event to another without taking into account their obvious differences. The individual may be forced to accept the fallacy in order not to be mislabeled in relation to the events used in the comparison.

References

Boden, M. (2000). The mind as a machine: a history of cognitive science. Oxford University

Hamblin, C. (2017). fallacies. Volume 8 of Law and Argumentation. Palaestra Publishers.

Pirie. M. (2013). How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic. Bloomsbury Publishing

Ramon, M. (2013). The 10 rules of argumentation and 13 types of argumentative fallacies. Peruvian University of the Center. Available at: http://repositorio.upecen.edu.pe/bitstream/UPECEN/33/1/v1n2-2013%2828-30%29.pdf