Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Arguing by analogy is indeed problematic. You can often find rough analogy which supports the argument, but also a different analogy which disproves it.

Additionally, I think arguing by analogy is a sign that you lack real / structural arguments, real understanding.



If you can find analogies for both supporting and disproving something, then the reasons are not what’s stated. Isn’t it good to show that?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: