1

Is there a limit on the creation of an analogy to explain any concept fairly accurately and intuitively? Normally humans create analogies to aid the understanding of a complicated concept at an accurate-enough level to be intuitively understood by applying real-world applications we are used to (for example, explaining general relativity using the tablecloth analogy, or the second law of thermodynamics using the analogy of dropping ink in a liquid...). However, how far can analogies explain ever more complex and philosophical concepts like consciousness, AdS space, or the brane world of string theory? In other words, is there a limit to human creativity and imagination, or a limit with our experiences to produce analogies for everything?

Improve this question
7
  • 2
    See the post why analogies work? Commented 2 days ago
  • 2
    To the extent that they are useful, why not? At some point, depending on the individual, their IQ, experience, etc. there is a practical limit in the sort of analogy that would be useful, but why would there be an external limit? Commented yesterday
  • 1
    “Of my sentences nine in ten are metaphorical; of my illustrations seven in ten are from valued writers. … The use of such metaphorical language is not my fault, but the fault of men (who would not otherwise readily understand me).” Chaung Tzu Commented yesterday
  • 1
    To the extent that the analogy is applicable, it can be applied. A good analogy can yield insight; a bad one can obscure the point. It's a communication tool like any other. Commented yesterday
  • For a relationship between lets say object A and object B to have a analogy ,the relationship must be able of being expressed mathematically as a function. Commented yesterday

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3

See Analogy and Analogical Reasoning: Characterization:

An analogical argument has the following form: (1) S is similar to T in certain (known) respects. (2) S has some further feature Q. (3) Therefore, T also has the feature Q, or some feature Q∗ similar to Q.

(1) and (2) are premises. (3) is the conclusion of the argument. The argument form is ampliative; the conclusion is not guaranteed to follow from the premises.

Thus, in principle, there is no reason to assume "limits to human creativity". But an analogy in reasoning ("analogies used to aid the understanding") must be "fruitful" (ampliative).

If not, they are Metaphors.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    This is an excellent point. Analogies are attempts to extend literal interpretations by borrowing from domains of discourses, where metaphors are outside of literal interpretation. Commented yesterday
2

Your question is a subjective one, in the sense that what might seem an illuminating analogy to one person might leave another in the dark. Analogies help us understand unfamiliar concepts by drawing parallels with familiar ones. A limit of applicability might therefore arise either because no parallel exists or because we lack the imagination or awareness to draw it.

It seems to me that there might well be cases in which explanatory similarities are lacking. For instance, I am not sure that there is a helpful parallel to explain why kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. However, if there is one, doubtless it will appear in the comments.

Improve this answer
1
  • Yes, people often stay close to the campfire because they are afraid of the dark. Commented yesterday
0

is there a limit to human creativity and imagination, or a limit with our experiences to produce analogies for everything?

If there is, I don't think there's any way we could determine this conclusively. Even if you discover a concept where you can't find an analogy, it could just be a limitation of you and the people you ask, not proof that an analogy is impossible.

More generally, you can usually only draw valid analogies between domains where you have knowledge or experience. Some analogies may be possible, but there just don't happen to be any people with the relevant intersection of knowledge.

So when an analogy can't be found, we can't tell if it's because of a fundamental limitation, or just contingent on who is around to try to form the analogy.

Like the scientific method, we've so far had very good experience with analogies. It doesn't seem like there's any inherent limit.

Improve this answer
0
0

You ask:

Can analogies be applied to everything?

According to a number of authors and philosophers, yes, if everything means that which is conceivable. Analogies maybe one of the fundamental properties of cognition in fact, if you believe Hofstatder and Sander and their theses in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking (GB). For them, cognition is analogical through and through. Every perception, concept, and act of reasoning depends on seeing one situation in terms of another. I personally believe that the philosophy of language and type-theoretic semantics implicitly endorse this thesis. One of the main challenges for AI is detecting, understanding, and reasoning through and across contexts.

Improve this answer
3
  • Robert M. Pirsig said that everything [explanatory] is an analogy. AI won't understand things until it is sufficiently anal-ogous. Commented yesterday
  • 1
    @ScottRowe H&S extend it to other modalities of cognition, and it's a compelling argument. Commented yesterday
  • Yes. I sometimes think Hofstadter went a bit off the rails after his first 2 books. Pirsig did before his first book. Best to get it over with. Commented yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.