I think this is simultaneously too weak a statement, and too harsh a judgement of analogies. In truth, ALL analogies are wrong. The entire point is that there are two distinct things/situations that you’re comparing. There are going to be differences which your analogy ignores.
However, this is just a subset of the fact that all models are wrong. The entire discussion is about maps, not territory. Reality is simply too complex to fully understand or communicate, so you internally use analogies and models to predict bits of it. There’s no avoiding that.
I take your point that arguing and convincing are generally indicators that you’re moving away from truth-seeking. In those cases, analogy isn’t the problem; there’s a more fundamental power dynamic that’s getting in the way.
I think this is simultaneously too weak a statement, and too harsh a judgement of analogies. In truth, ALL analogies are wrong. The entire point is that there are two distinct things/situations that you’re comparing. There are going to be differences which your analogy ignores.
However, this is just a subset of the fact that all models are wrong. The entire discussion is about maps, not territory. Reality is simply too complex to fully understand or communicate, so you internally use analogies and models to predict bits of it. There’s no avoiding that.
I take your point that arguing and convincing are generally indicators that you’re moving away from truth-seeking. In those cases, analogy isn’t the problem; there’s a more fundamental power dynamic that’s getting in the way.