The other day, I shared my summarized observation about the use of analogies. During the conversation, I used an analogy to make my point. In response, my friend presented the argument:
When summarizing for yourself, you can use analogies, but when communicating to others, it's preferable to stick to simple first principles without relying on analogies.
Essentially, his idea was that if I wanted to explain something to him, he would prefer to see it presented without analogies, focusing solely on the "first principles."
In this article, I would like to delve deeper into this question. Does it truly make sense to strive for "first principles," and if so, when, how, and why should we do so?
Let’s go over another dialog to bring some context first as well as the position of opinions.
Bob
The word "meme" was made up by a scientist named Richard Dawkins. It's similar to a virus in the sense that it can spread and replicate. By using the virus analogy.
We can think of memes (on Internet) as being similar to viruses because they can spread quickly.
Just like we have vaccines to prevent viruses from making us sick, education can help us avoid spreading certain memes.
If we learn about them, we can be less influenced by them in the future. But not all memes are bad. Some can be good and spread for good reasons, like making people laugh or sharing helpful ideas.
What do you think about such analogy?
One can be "cured" themselves through thought process - critical thinking, that makes mental model an analogy to immune system.
Alice
Comparing Internet memes to viruses looks fine to me, quite useful analogy. Easy to remember. Easy to understand. To connect dots, associativity.
However, when it comes to finding a "cure" for harmful memes, I believe it's better to focus on clearing and emptying the aware mind rather than relying solely on "critical thinking "or overloading with antivirus software.It's like choosing a simpler operating system, such as Free BSD, which is less susceptible to viruses compared to Windows with Avast antivirus.
Instead of constantly analysing and getting caught up in complex arguments and words, it's beneficial to practice mindfulness, which promotes a sense of awareness and purification without exhausting the brain.
Bob
Not sure how mindfulness can help in all cases without critical thinking. But it can be a useful tool as well. Like "fasting for mind'.
Alice
Fasting, here we go, you just brought the anology, I wonder if you noticed it…
Yes, like fasting, but constantly fasting then. Like intermediate fasting.
Our minds work both consciously and subconsciously. However, both makes mistakes and fail at times.
That's why it's helpful to combine different approaches, like mindfulness and critical thinking.
With proper training, critical thinking can even happen automatically, without us actively trying to launch it.
Like could engineers promote automation of everything, same could be applied to moving crutical thinking to subconscious level.
Different people may be better at one approach than the other, for sure.
Bob
By definition, critical thinking requires thinking, this uses the system 2 (slow) of our brain. But habit can be created to hold on and engage it.
Alice
Critical thinking could be then dangerous as the immune system that sometimes fails, when it does it fails big. Leading to self-destruction as result of thinking or over-thinking yet critically. Fighting something with criticism which supposed to be treated differently. It's still worth investigating who initiated the critical thinking. Since thinking itself is a tool, a heavy loaded car vagon that pushing air in front of it.
Bob
True. Pick your thinking targets wisely. You have just one brain. One could have a habit not to over-think, which could be under-thinking.. not critical enough then.. but better do some critical thinking then none, I suppose.
The conversation took a bit of a detour into another topic, but I hope you can grasp the underlying logic here: some people prefer points to be explained without the use of analogies. In their view, analogies can be potentially misleading or risky.
~
I will make it look as "technical requirements".
You as a "rational agent", wants to be able to acquire information in its "pure form" (first principle), as accurate as possible, so that when you read the description, you would get the idea of the subject and logic behind it.
In world of people, we all have our unique features and traits of character. It's easy to fall into the trap of believing someone we find likeable or being swayed by a Power Point presentation that appeals to our personal preferences, like one filled with cute little cats (who doesn't love cats). By acknowledging the cuteness of the cat wrapped in an analogy, you are essentially accepting the point being made.
Our tendency to associate "what looks visually appealing" can lead us to believe that the presented content is true, potentially causing us to overlook any flaws or inaccuracies in the information being presented.
When we read a work of fiction, it totally makes sense to enjoy and appreciate literary styles that are filled with analogies.
In a description of a cozy room, with pleasant smells and a rainy afternoon, and you're immersed in a book, where the author may be trying to convey the idea that "this is better than that." It's quite possible you would likely to accept and believe in that argument, because the description evokes memories of your own experiences as a reader, particularly during your childhood and all that argued now wrapped with pleasantly for you to believe in. Well, that method would involve you into book more easterly, and you will enjoy it more.
But If something is written in a logical manner, following rules and principles that prioritise the content and minimise the author's influence, then the focus will be on the information and the points being made.
In such cases, the content takes centre stage rather than the author's presence or personal biases.
Though, from the book "On Writing Well," We may learn that excluding the author or character from the equation can make sentences feel "dead," even in non-fiction writing.
Otherwise, It can make the subject difficult and uninteresting to read because we often read stories to understand the author's perspective. That's what keeps us engaged. The author's thoughts and feelings bring the story to life.
Similarly, using apologies can be a powerful mechanism to make a point and create stronger associations with the described matter, helping it stick in the reader's mind more effectively.
But some may argue that we don't care about stories when we seek first principles. In fact, we might not even care about the author's perspective or thoughts.
In that case, I would suggest taking a closer look at Richard Feynman's speeches and how he explained physics.
Richard Feynman had a remarkable ability to be emotional, elaborative, collaborative, and yet stay straight to the point. He was able to make complex ideas simple and interesting for people.
Please watch the video below, to this point (I enjoyed it so much!).
Power of analogies
Here I extracted a list of analogies and figures of speech that I could catch from that video above.
Waves formed in a swimming pool are compared to the behaviour of light waves.
An analogy of an insect sitting in the corner of a pool and being disturbed by waves is used to explain how information can be extracted from the waves in the pool.
Light waves are described as waves in three dimensions, unlike the waves in the pool.
The sensitivity of the eye to light waves coming from a particular direction is compared to an 8th-inch black hole.
Moving the eye to gather more information from the corner of the eye is likened to swiveling a ball.
The intricate network of light waves is compared to arrows passing each other. The complexity of light waves is contrasted with the simplicity of water waves.
The multitude of waves bouncing around the room and interacting with various objects is described as a tremendous mess.
Waves of different lengths in the water are compared to the waves of different colors in the visible spectrum (blue, red, infrared).
The presence of various waves, including light waves and radio waves, carrying information from different sources is likened to the broadcasting of radio signals.
Connecting a wire to a box to receive radio waves and hear Radio is used as an analogy to explain the presence and retrieval of encoded information from waves.
Take a look at them! Feynman's speeches are filled with life and interconnectedness. The use of analogies brings the topic to life and makes it easier to understand, connecting concepts and painting a vivid picture.
Now, let's take his original speech and condense it into a more purely informational form, removing potentially risky analogies and excluding the author's personal opinions and emotions about the subject.
Light waves are emitted in all directions and can be observed by our eyes.
Our eyes are sensitive to specific directions of light waves…
I will stop right here, I hope you see the point, all suddenly became boring and life sucked out of the explanation. (Pretty much as in one of those lectures back in my university).
Another way to say is this:
1. Wave Equation: The wave equation describes the behaviour of waves and can be expressed as:
∂²ψ/∂t² = c²∇²ψ
Where
- ψ is the wave function or disturbance
- t is time
- c is the speed of the wave
- ∇² is the Laplacian operator
…
I can continue, but the point is clear here too. I hope.
So, choose your form.
If I were a student who wanted to grasp the idea of light/waves, I would have picked the original Feynman’s version, with anthologies, "pictures and conversations".
If you went to Feynman lecture, I guess you might have extracted to something similar to 2nd form. You might put some drawing of that swimming pool and all the surrounding environment, including you sitting there, as a bonus.
If you are 10 y in physics, I guess you would be okay to stick just to formulas (if you still need to write them down) with analogies and the whole text and description excluded.
~
We seem can be safe when analogies come from such people like Richard Dawkins or Richard Feynman - from anyone who worked work enough in the field and takes his or her work seriously.
But not to be too serious though - not to lose the "human face". Thea what people were saying about Richard Feynman - "physicist with human face" - the one of not many who could explain complex matter in simple animated way (I wonder what he could have done not using analogies).
~
Here we approach the point where analogies could be dangerous, sometimes deadly dangerous.
Take this:
Parable of the Ten Virgins, found in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 25:1-13. (you can check your Bible version)
This is what's called parable - a type of analogy (along with hyperbolic expression). Here Jesus tells a story about ten virgins who were waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom, who represents Jesus himself. The ten virgins took their lamps and went out to meet him. Five of them were wise and brought extra oil for their lamps, while the other five were foolish and did not bring any extra oil.
So, one can interpret it like this:
The analogy in this parable lies in comparing the ten virgins to people awaiting the arrival of Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven. The lamps and oil represent faith, readiness, and spiritual preparedness. The parable encourages believers to be vigilant, prepared, and always ready for the Lord's coming.
The hyperbolic expression is seen in the urgency of the situation, especially when the foolish virgins say to the wise ones, "Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out." It is an exaggerated statement to emphasize their desperate state of unpreparedness.
Another one can interpreter like this:
It is all about embracing a different way of living life—centred around being fully aware.
Rather than being driven solely by thoughts and emotions, it's crucial to recognize that you may have been led astray all this time.
The alternative path is to embody awareness and exist as the true essence of your being, akin to the way Jesus lived. Therefore, 'hell' and 'heaven' represent contrasting inner states within yourself, rather than external destinations like the heavenly realm in the sky.
If you look closely, these two interpretations - here are crucial differences in them. Existence of Haven, return of Christ. Inner vs Outer. The lamps are filled with different kind of “oil”.
There is indeed a possibility of misunderstandings or misinterpretations arising from analogies or other passages found in the Bible. The inclusion of parables and hyperbolic expressions in the text has the potential to lead to significant consequences, as exemplified by the historical events of the Crusades that occurred between 1095 and 1291.
It is crucial to acknowledge that religion is a serious matter, as people have unfortunately resorted to violence in its name. Clear communication and understanding are essential in religious discourse to promote peace and prevent such tragic outcomes.
But I am aware of “different times had different circumstances” argument. And it seems the domain-specific language was not a concept back then, nor was Richard Feynman born yet. However, I am convinced that Jesus possessed a similar level of talent as Richard Feynman of not more. In this case, I attribute this issues to the overuse of parables (indeed), challenges faced by translators, on top corruptions within religious institutions that misuse religion as a source of power…
That is my example of bad and dangerous usages of analogies. Very dangerous indeed.
~
To summarize then: It seems to me that using the analogy is okay to make students (or readers) easily grasp the idea and keep matter interesting on initial phase of understanding
It could be dangerous or at least confusing indeed if person who explains the subject is not talented enough to make it right (analogy could be broken, too much not accurate)
It could be avoided if you are not on initial level of understanding (and or to use special language, not just English)
It is probably better to avoid analogies if you are talking to a person who is not as proficient in the language (say English), so to say: you code smells, will do not good work for that person. Because in his or her native language (and culture), there is no any bad (danger-related) association in this. Like spoiled food - smells bad, do not it. When code smells bad, it can lead to dangerous outcomes.
Therefore, if your intention is to convey your message to all people on Earth, akin to the way the Bible has spread over centuries, I would argue that analogies may not be beneficial. While it is true that not everything can be comprehended by the rational mind alone, when rational understanding is possible, it is best to avoid relying heavily on analogies.
Keeping notes with no analogies is okay on the next level (once concept is grasped)
About the 3d level - keeping pure formulas when you are totally in the context of the subject. It is OK, sure one should not start explaining concept starting from this.
Links:
Power of analogies
Faynman Interview (the interview mentioned above)
Danger of analogies
The Man From Earth (a movie, available on YT)