is it the right anology?

[falcon9393]

Is it right to use an anology comparing human life to a peice of machinery such as a car ect... but then again is it right to compare a human life to another living organism.

 

let me know your thoughts on this

 

thanks!

[iNow]

There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, but it really depends on the context of the situation and the example you're trying to make with the comparison.

 

Why do you ask?

[falcon9393]

There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, but it really depends on the context of the situation and the example you're trying to make with the comparison.

 

Why do you ask?

 

just generally wondering??

[iNow]

Well, so long as you recognize that there are HUGE limitations on the comparison, then whatever.

 

 

Example:

Cars have working parts. So do humans.

Humans move. So do cars.

Cars are complex. Humans are complex.

 

Here's one to watch though...

 

Humans reproduce and are subject to the laws of natural selection. Cars do not reproduce, so the comparison would fail.

[thedarkshade]

But depends on what you really are thinking of creating an analogy!

[falcon9393]

Well, so long as you recognize that there are HUGE limitations on the comparison, then whatever.

 

 

Example:

Cars have working parts. So do humans.

Humans move. So do cars.

Cars are complex. Humans are complex.

 

Here's one to watch though...

 

Humans reproduce and are subject to the laws of natural selection. Cars do not reproduce, so the comparison would fail.

 

true true however saying cars are complex and humans are complex well ya sure cars are complex but humans are way more complex i mean we have figured out cars but some human habbits and functions are still a mystery such as deja vu and other such stuff and yes stuff is a vauge word i know

[Sisyphus]

I think your question is too vague, since anything can be compared with anything else under the right circumstances. This might be too presumptuous, but I think what you're really asking is how similar is human life to mechanical objects, and how similar is it to nonhuman life. Right?

 

Well, a human is definitely more complicated than any single artificial object, that's true. But really, it's perfectly valid to consider the body as an extremely complicated, self-repairing, highly-adaptive, self-replicating machine. We are made of parts (LOTS of them) that operate by the laws of physics and chemistry, just like everything else. And you're right that there is a whole lot of it that we don't yet understand completely. That's why we take the "bigger picture" view where we focus on the parts we can "get at" more easily. For example, the way thinking really works on the basic level is still too complicated for us, so we look at its effects and study those.

 

As for humans and nonhumans, sure, of course. Different organisms have lots of closely analogous structures, because hey, we're all related. Generally, the closer the relation, the closer the analogy. For example, chimpanzees are among humans' closest relatives, and a chimp body "works" in almost exactly the same way as a human body.

[DrDNA]

Humans reproduce and are subject to the laws of natural selection. Cars do not reproduce, so the comparison would fail.

 

But cars are subject to natural selection....well, sort of anyway....via the free market.....bye bye Pacer, Pinto, Gremlin, and Vega.....

[iNow]

But cars are subject to natural selection....well, sort of anyway....via the free market.....bye bye Pacer, Pinto, Gremlin, and Vega.....

 

No, they're subject to obsolescence (or lack of demand). Natural selection implies that they survive long enough to have offspring, and that this is because they had traits and characteristics which made them suited to reproduce in their environment. While cars produce a lot of toxic crap, they don't produce kids (reproduce themselves).

 

 

Don't forget the Edsel.

[DrDNA]

Obsolescene of an organism = end of species / Same for cars.

Traits and characeristics that make them suited to environment = species thrives / People buy more of that type of car therefore car makers make more.

Ram with big horns gets more hot ram chicks / Guy with BMW, Porche or Corvette gets hot human chicks

Animal with brain too small for big powerful body eventually dies out / Guy with small brain and big powerful engine eventually crashes car

 

All that's missing is procreation and many children were actually concieved in cars.

 

You need to watch more Monster Garage man!

[Mr Skeptic]

Humans reproduce and are subject to the laws of natural selection. Cars do not reproduce, so the comparison would fail.

 

Cars have just evolved to a higher state, transcending biology. They have lost their ability to reproduce, relying instead on their primate slaves to assist them. In this they are like viruses. The cars that maintain better control of their primate slaves reproduce more effectively. This forces cars to evolve into shinier, better models.

 

Bad car analogies FTW!

 

Of course, a single living cell is far more complicated than a car.

[gcol]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a duck..........not.

 

Drawing inferences and conclusions based on inadequate analogies should be a logical and scientific no-no.

 

Cars and humans? Even worse than comparing the shape and nature of space-time to an expanding party balloon, except for childrens' parties.

 

All in my humble opinion, of course.

[iNow]

Technically, you could compare a human to a rock. You could compare a human to a book. You could compare a human to a table.

 

You can compare just about anything to just about anything else.

 

 

The question becomes, what point are you trying to make and does your comparison remain accurate while doing so.

 

 

You don't have longhorns on your BMW?

 

Mon...Ster... Mon...Sterr Ga... rage...

[Phi for All]

Is it right to use an anology comparing human life to a peice of machinery such as a car ect... but then again is it right to compare a human life to another living organism.

Another thing to be wary of when using analogy are the conclusions you draw from it. If you're using analogy to argue a point, you run the risk of fallacious logic if your analogy starts to override the real subject. Example:

 

eagle2121: "I feel sort of sluggish today."

 

falcon9393: "Well, the human body is like a car. It needs good fuel to keep it going. If you put cheap gasoline in it it's going to run bad, even sluggishly. You must have eaten something bad for you, that's why you feel this way."

 

 

See how the conclusion drawn here isn't necessarily the case? eagle2121 could be suffering from the onset of some disease or other illness, but you've concluded otherwise because of your analogy.