Talk:Analogy

Vague reference

130.88.0.24 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The reference to Hofsteader in the introduction is vague and it's impossible to find the exact article that is being referred to.

Update category?

Karol, you said that "philosophy" is too general a category. I could agree, but what do you suggest? Analogy comes to philosophy (1) from an argumentative tradition (in "logic", epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, legal theory...) and (2) from present day cognitive studies. It has also very strong (philosophical) connections to language and language related subjects. How should we put it? Actually, I'm starting to think that analogy is indeed a general philosophical subject... Velho 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Well, I'll change it to "Philosophical arguments"... Velho 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)The

Different Strokes

TWIC ("To Whom It Concerns"), this business with the different arrow directions between source and target has been a headache as long as I can remember, and works against communication between the various traditions, not to mention befuddling novice and expert readers alike. I will work out a more neutral language for relating the different points of view. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Very incomplete and unconclusive article in the Applications in Science and Engineering section

The section called "Aplications on Science and Engineering" is totally incomplete and lacks more analysis and many examples. This presentation underscores the importance that analogies have in the understanding and specially in the teaching of science and Engineering. The article only mentions one of many analogies comparing "electrical circuits to hydraulics". This is not only incomplete, but incorrect as well, since it compares a knowledge field (Hydraulics) to a physical system (electrical circuit); it should say something like: One of the most used analogies is the one comparing several electrical variables to their corresponding hydraulic ones, for example: Voltage is analogous to Pressure, while Current is analogous to fluid Flow, and Electrical Resistance is analogous to fluid flow Restriction (or "Pressure Drop")... therefore, the behaviour of a simple electrical circuit can be easily compared with the behaviour of a familiar and commonly known elevated water tank connected with piping to a lower reservoir, and in that way the modification of a given variable (like elevating the tank or changing the piping diameter) can be easily related and understood, which makes analogy use a powerful tool to predict the effect in an engineering analysis.

There are MANY analogies in Physics, extending between many disciplines, like the analogy of electrical Inductance to Mass (inertia) in an analogous Mechanical system and extending to several other fields. Thus, analogies between separate disciplines can help understand many different phenomena. Just to mention one example: Resonance in the various fields of Acoustics, Mechanics Electronics and even Optics. Analogies can be either strong or "true" or approximate, or "weak", but anyhow useful and important. As it is, the article remains very shallow is these sections. Amclaussen.

Copy edit

The first paragraph of this article made me cringe. It was so overly complex and difficult to understand:

Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

I changed the first paragraph to: Fuck all of you

An analogy is the similarity between two things, which a comparison may be based. In biology it means to have a similar function but have a different structure and evolutionary origin.

The rest of the article probably reads just as badly, and is overly complex. I added the {{Copyedit}} tag.

As a law student, I read complex/nasty legislation and cases everyday. My job will be to interpret complex ideas and text. This paragraph was even difficult for me to understand.

Travb (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

--Agreed, I am not sure if it was changed back or what, but the first paragraph is horrible. Even for those looking for more than a definition, that is quite a confusing and seemingly random way to start an article about a word commonly used to mean "comparison" (slightly simplified, but basically true).Mfergason 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the wording can be improved, but please notice that analogy isn't comparison nor similarity. The word analogy is subject to Wiktionary. In Wikipedia the philosophical and cognitive science subjects of analogy must be addressed. Velho 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Analogy = induction + deduction

In logic, it is pretty obvious that analogy is simply two logical inferences: induction followed by deduction.

Suppose an analogy inference gives p(b) from p(a), this can be reduced to two inferences:

By induction: p(a) -> p(x)   (constant a is generalised to a variable x)
By deduction: p(x) -> p(b)   (variable x is specialised to a constant b)

where p is a predicate symbol, a and b are constants and x is a variable. Clearly there also has to be some additional knowledge that specifies the domain. Presumably the same approach can be extended to more complex logical formulae. Pgr94 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles Sanders Peirce wrote something to this effect. Pgr94 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the article already makes clear that sometimes we can go from p(a) to p(b) without accepting (or being able to accept) p(x). See the cited article by Juthe. Besides, what you mean is that analogy gives the same results as induction + deduction give, not that analogy is induction + deduction. Velho 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has subsections on reducing analogy to induction ("special case of induction") and reducing analogy to deduction ("Hidden deduction"). Both inferences are inadequate on their own, as you need both. Not sure about the Juthe paper as it completely fails to mention Peirce who considered the problem nearly a century earlier! [1] Pgr94 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Language needs simplifying

Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

Some of the language and grammar used within this article needs simplifying. I'm quite highly educated and the first paragraph required me to read over it once or twice to understand fully what it was conveying.--GateKiller (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. I know what an analogy is, but if I didn't then the introductory paragraph would be incredibly difficult to understand. If you happened to be a student trying to brush up on your English then it would be almost incomprehensible. This sentence in particular is extremely poor:

"In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general."

In other words, it's a type of argument in which you use a generally accepted example as a comparison to prove a point. Why not simply write that instead of over-complicating a frankly very simple concept. Bandanamerchant (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

full analysis of word origin?

Article refers to 'analogia', translates that as 'proportion'. Does that mean 'analogy' is related to neither 'ana' (as opposed to 'kata'), nor to 'logos'? Or does it simply not make sense to analyze it any further? --84.177.94.31 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject or Object

Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target).

I cannot see in what sense a source and a target can be a subject, and I cannot see how meaning and information can be transferred without knowing at all what information and meaning are, whether they are possible to transfer at all. Like I assume that you are talking about discourse, texts written in a natural language and infomration and meaning are related to those tools.

{{tone}} and {{original research}} tags

These tags were added by User:Star767, but I don't understand why they were added. Are these tags still useful now, or should they be removed? Jarble (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Tags removed. --WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)