Reply #11: The fallacy of: "Argument by analogy"

[LongTomH]

This is taken from the Info-Pollution website.

In an argument by analogy it is claimed that if two things have certain characteristics (A) in common, then they are also probably have one or more additional traits (B) in common. When done well the argument can lead to an increase in knowledge. For example, Charles Darwin noted the similarities between animal and plant breeding (artificial selection) and natural selection in developing his theory of evolution. But when done poorly or deceptively it can mislead, and is a leading propaganda tool. Here is the basic form:

Sam likes Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner.

I now Sally likes Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. She will probably like Bruckner also, so I will buy this CD for her.

In many cases the additional trait(s) are simply implied. Calling pork "the other white meat" implies that like chicken and fish it is better for you than red meat. The advertisement can convince at least same of the viewers, without any data to support it.

In this case, nanotechnology is merely mentioned in the same sentence with "Genetically Modified 'Frankenfood','Terminator' seeds, and Monsanto," without giving arguments as to why they are similar or identical.

Please be aware: I raised the question of corporatist misuse of nanotechnology; but, I tried to discourage an outright, neo-luddite rejection of nanotechnology. My intent was to give people an incentive to follow the leads, educate themselves on the issues surrounding this new technology, and - hopefully - take part in the dialogue.

By the way, I deliberately wrote 'dialogue' instead of 'debate.' I want a reasoned dialogue on the issues, not a shouting match.