I found section C: Judging Analogies in Chapter 12, very interesting and fascinating because whenever analogies are discussed or mentioned in an argument, they may not always be stated in a clear and cohesive matter. In order to show the analogy makes sense and that it can be used as the premise, as Epstein's text states, "We have to survey the simliarities and guess the important ones in order to find a general principle that applies to both sides. Then we have to survey the differences to see if there isn't some reason that the general principle might not apply to one side" (257). In other words, we have to test and look at both sides of the analogy and see which one relates (is most relevant) to the topic being discussed at hand. As well as making sure the main "principle" would apply to both sides and not just one.
For example,
Manny Ramirez (LA Dodgers) was caught with taking steroids, and although he dealt with the penalty of being suspended from playing, after the suspension he was able to play again with no other penalties. So high school and college baseball players who take steroids should just get the average suspension and not deal with any other penalties.
This can be somewhat convincing because although a player no matter what rank they are, all are aware of the rules and regulations when playing on their team. However, in college and high school, these players are also students and there are seperate rules they have to deal with if the individual chooses to take steroids. In MLB baseball, if the player gets caught and admits to taking steroids, they get the minimal penalty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You had picked a very interesting subject to talk about. I like it. Also, your explanation is very detailed regarding the judging of analogies. Although we have to look at the similarities of the analogy and weigh the difference in it, it is sometimes hard to figure out which one is which. Especially in a more complicated situation. I also like your example. It is also very hard to detect if the player is purposefully taking steroids or not now. Why? probably because there are so many substances that athletes intake that has some sort of steroid in it. Just my opinion. I like what you wrote good job!
ReplyDeleteI agree with La Petite Fille,
ReplyDeleteYou explained is thorough enough for understanding, and your example was interesting too! I’m not really big on MLB, but this is such a common scenario throughout sports teams that it’s a good topic to analyze. It isn’t totally irrelevant, but there is an obvious imbalance between professional sports players and students. With reasoning by analogies, it’s important to know where the line is drawn between all the differences. Otherwise, you’re right... It could be convincing, but doesn’t necessarily make it a strong or valid argument. Good job on this blog! Good explanation and subject!