I believe the parent was intentionally particular in its choice of words on this point, and perhaps you've glossed over that intentionality, as well as how it differs from your idea here.
The original:
> "... making analogies to other ideas has consistently proven to be almost completely useless for creating knowledge of reality ..."
vs your statement:
> "Analogy is a tool to translate facts into thoughts another person can understand ... If it works as a tool of human communication, and creating knowledge of reality requires human communication, then it is a tool that can be potentially useful."
The parent is talking about creating knowledge of reality by systematic observation, controlled experimentation, and Bayesian inference--and then repeating that process based on the results and predictions of the process to gradually create knowledge of reality previously unknown. However, you're pointing to communicating knowledge of reality in a more understandable and relatable format.
I do not think the parent was showing any "disdain to all other kinds of thinking"--because analogies are not another kind of thinking, but are a tool for communication.
Analogies cannot be tested and judged on their predictive capabilities. You cannot infer new knowledge of reality from analogies. The most rigorous test one can subject analogies to is determining whether they are, in fact, homologous. You can use analogies to [usually poorly] communicate knowledge of reality to those who do not already understand it, relating unknown knowledge to something already known, familiar, and understood. This can help a person grasp this knowledge where s/he previously did not. However, analogies do not allow for systematic study, testing, experimenting, predicting, etc.--all the things the scientific method allows. One cannot make Bayesian inferences from analogies--how exactly would such a thing work? The most one can do with analogies is use them to lubricate a conversation when one finds it necessary to help someone lacking the requisite verbal or technical understanding join the discussion.
If you'll grant that we can obtain both verbal and technical understanding of any given piece of knowledge, analogies help obtain the former, but can do nothing for the latter. That is, analogies help increase verbal understanding by facilitating easier communication, but they do nothing for arriving at technical understanding or discovering knowledge in the first place.
Comments
I believe the parent was intentionally particular in its choice of words on this point, and perhaps you've glossed over that intentionality, as well as how it differs from your idea here.
The original:
vs your statement:
The parent is talking about creating knowledge of reality by systematic observation, controlled experimentation, and Bayesian inference--and then repeating that process based on the results and predictions of the process to gradually create knowledge of reality previously unknown. However, you're pointing to communicating knowledge of reality in a more understandable and relatable format.
I do not think the parent was showing any "disdain to all other kinds of thinking"--because analogies are not another kind of thinking, but are a tool for communication.
Analogies cannot be tested and judged on their predictive capabilities. You cannot infer new knowledge of reality from analogies. The most rigorous test one can subject analogies to is determining whether they are, in fact, homologous. You can use analogies to [usually poorly] communicate knowledge of reality to those who do not already understand it, relating unknown knowledge to something already known, familiar, and understood. This can help a person grasp this knowledge where s/he previously did not. However, analogies do not allow for systematic study, testing, experimenting, predicting, etc.--all the things the scientific method allows. One cannot make Bayesian inferences from analogies--how exactly would such a thing work? The most one can do with analogies is use them to lubricate a conversation when one finds it necessary to help someone lacking the requisite verbal or technical understanding join the discussion.
If you'll grant that we can obtain both verbal and technical understanding of any given piece of knowledge, analogies help obtain the former, but can do nothing for the latter. That is, analogies help increase verbal understanding by facilitating easier communication, but they do nothing for arriving at technical understanding or discovering knowledge in the first place.