Here’s why.
Analogies serve the purpose of strengthening pre-held ideas. They are used, more often than not, as a way to cement existing thoughts and beliefs. I can have analogies to prove anything I want to prove. In that, they are much like data, of which it is said; data can be made to talk the language you want it to speak. Yet, data can still prove theories. Analogies are inherently specious when it comes to proving theories, which counter-intuitively, is exactly what they are supposed to do. As such, they not only ‘not-do’ their job well, but indeed, do not have any credibility. An idea loses its charm for me, if it is backed by an analogy. If an idea requires to be supported by one, it is not substantial enough. Analogies don’t prove anything; and as such, don’t hold any meaning.
Secondly, analogies are akin to Confirmation bias. They seek to validate an idea or a thought while conveniently ignoring any view on the contrary, which, by the way, can be proven equally well with a different analogy. If an idea, and its counter, both can be supported equally well by analogies, what is the use of one? I find it perplexing how not only are they used so freely and purposefully; but are also received well. People tend to agree with an idea more easily if it is supported by an analogy, without giving a thought to the fact that its counter-idea can be equally well and equally easily be proven by another analogy.
Now let’s delve into some examples.
Analogies are counter-productive.
The following excerpt is attributed to Sri Ramana Maharshi, “Silence is ever-speaking. It is a perennial flow of language which is interrupted by speaking. These words I am speaking obstruct that mute language. For example, there is electricity flowing in a wire. With resistance to its passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains as electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of language, obstructed by words.”
In the above passage, silence has been compared to electricity, and it’s stoppage to produce the effects of current to speaking. Term-by-term, it’s a fair comparison. However, an analogy is supposed to support an idea with another. And here, this analogy fails.
By this analogy, in the way speaking obstructs silence, thereby being an unwanted entity; so also resistance to the flow of electricity and it’s use to power a lamp or a fan is an unwanted result. But we know that is exactly what the use of electricity is; and hence, resistance to the flow of electricity is actually a desirable cause. Yet, that is not the idea Sri Ramana propounds by comparing resistance to the flow of current to speaking. Hence, this analogy is counter-productive.
Take another for example.
Analogies are specious.
In the practice of Nichiren Buddhism, practitioners are often told how prayer is like Disprin: it works, though how it works is shielded from the taker. Similarly, one should pray without worrying about how it shall benefit oneself. But indeed, Disprin has a medical basis to it, and its cause of its effect can very easily be explained to any member of the homo sapiens. To liken it to prayer, whose effects, though not questionable, do not have a base in science, is foolhardy to say the least.
A third.
Analogies are shallow.
Faith is like wi-fi. Both cannot be seen, but if one can use wi-fi without questioning its origins or understanding how it works; one should apply the same logic to faith as well. My grouse with this one? The mysteries of the working of Wi-fi, though not in the realm of understanding of most ordinary people, can however be uncovered, via some research. Wi-fi has a very sound scientific base to it, which can easily be understood by any discerning person. One can’t, on the other hand, claim the same for faith (just for the record, I have nothing against faith, just the analogy). Faced with this analogy, I’d be left questioning not only the the substance of the analogy, but also the idea that it seeks to endorse.
Because of the mindless use of analogies (which is ironical, since analogies are considered one of the ways to make the language flowery, and to further an idea, which requires the use of one’s mind), they have a reverse effect on me and drive me away from the very idea they propound, thereby having quite the opposite effect of what they intend to achieve. If the same thing is explained in plain terms, without using analogies, they would have a much better effect. Analogies, to me, are a put-off.
Probably the need is to use better analogies. Or none at all.
Can you share some meaningful analogies in the comments below?
