Stop being melodramatic. Since I've actually studied how natural language statements map to logical truth functions, I'm honestly mystified as to why you think an analogy is semantically equivalent to a material conditional.

You're not the only one who has studied such things. I, too, have studied how natural languages map (or don't map) to the logical constructs in math, and I've also studied (informally) rhetoric and similar topics.

A bad analogy spoils the narrative and undermines the point. It seemed perfectly valid for jerrya to raise the question, and raised in my mind the ancient Chinese tale of Zhuangzi and Huizi strolling on Bridge Hao.

    Zhuangzi: "Look how happy the fish are just
              swimming around in the river."

    Huizi:    "How do you know they are happy?
              You are not a fish."

    Zhuangzi: "And you are not me. How do you
              know I don't know the fish are
              happy?"

    Huizi:    "Of course I'm not you, and I
              don't know what you think; But
              I do know that you're not a fish,
              and so you couldn't possibly know
              the fish are happy."

    Zhuangzi: "Look, when you asked me how I knew
              the fish were happy, you already
              knew that I knew the fish were happy.
              I knew it from my feelings standing
              on this bridge."

We don't know if the fish know about water or not, and claiming such ignorance really does undermine the point. The points about not noticing culture because you are immersed in it and have no basis for comparison are true, but a poor clichéd analogy is a bad way to start.

I still don't see one bit of explanation as to how an analogy is equivalent to a material conditional.

I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed over whether or not fish actually realize they are in water.

I can't speak for your original interlocutor, but for me, it went like this:

  Fish don't know about water ...

Hang on. Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, it's plausible that some do. OK, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is this a premise? An analogy? Either way it's either wrong or pretty weak - why should I bother reading the rest? I mean, if it's all this bad, then it'll be a waste of time ...

Perhaps someone else's thought processes go like this:

If this is an analogy it's really poor, so I guess it must be a premise. But it's wrong, so now I really don't know what's going on here ...

It reads like a starting point. It reads like a fact that will be built on. To some, that's bad, and possibly jerrya was just trying to point that out. From that point of view it is, perhaps, you who is bikeshedding. Perhaps you should take jerrya's comment slightly less literally, and more as you would have us read the original article.

But that's just how it seems to me. Likely I'm wrong too. But one thing's now for sure, I've expressed my views, and I'm unlikely to spend more time on this question.

http://xkcd.com/386/

So you can't be bothered to read more than five words before formulating an opinion, yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. And then you downvote me for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional?

Interesting how you assume I downvoted you.

I didn't.

Research shows that opinions are formed very, very quickly.

Further, I did read the article, even though my initial reactions were so negative. I did that because I know that sometimes people don't write well, but their ideas might still be worth considering.

My comments were born of trying to help people understand how apparently small issues in their writing can have apparently disproportionate effects on their audiences.

So, let's see. You said:

  So you can't be bothered to read more than five words

That was wrong.

  ... before formulating an opinion,

Your outrage contradicts findings in research.

  ... yet you write several paragraphs expressing
  that opinion.

Yes. Clear expression of ideas matters, and sometimes the "instant quip" is a bad way to get an idea across.

  And then you downvote me

No, I didn't.

  ... for asking how an analogy equates to a material
  conditional?

But that wasn't the point. I tried to explain how there were multiple ways to look at that opening "idea," and that none of them actually worked.

So clearly I've failed in getting my point across. As Samuel Johnson said (although other sources attribute it to James Boswell):

    Sir, I have found you an argument;
    but I am not obliged to find you an
        understanding.

I conceded your point before you wasted your time arguing it. Past that point, you've really nothing interesting to say.

Sadly, I am more than familiar with the general quality of people's reading comprehension. Perhaps it is too much to expect that someone reads something and understands it before formulating an opinion about it.

By the way, statements like this

  Your outrage contradicts findings in research.

are curious as well. My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a sentiment, not a proposition. Which raises an interesting question--you criticize a metaphor, essentially a parable, by attacking its literal and logical truth, while spouting logical nonsense of your own. I criticize your logic, and you fall back to...what, exactly?

Incidentally, there's no proof either way whether you downvoted me or not, but I will take you at your word and disregard the circumstantial evidence otherwise.

  I conceded your point before you wasted
  your time arguing it. Past that point,
  you've really nothing interesting to say.

My apologies for wasting your time. It wasn't clear to me that you understood the points I was trying to make. It now does seem clear to me that you don't, but since I've already said it as clearly as I can, seems little point in adding to it.

You may choose not to bother reading further.

  >> Your outrage contradicts findings in research.

  > My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a
  > sentiment, not a proposition.

Sorry, but it seemed to me to be more than simply disappointment. And you may be disappointed, but research says that people form opinions very quickly. To try to take a stance that this should not be the case is a little odd. So I guess I don't understand your point.

  > ... spouting logical nonsense of your own.

It's not clear to me what of my writings you think are logical nonsense. It's also not clear what you refer to when you say: "I criticize your logic ..." I've re-read your comments several time, and don't really see a coherent criticism of my logic.

Thank you for taking me at my word when I say I didn't down-vote you. I don't down-vote people for simple disagreements.

But let me finish with this:

Yes, it was an analogy. Yes, he was using it to set the scene to make a valid point. Yes, the article was mildly insightful.

The point I was trying to make - no doubt badly - is that his leading statement just provoked the reaction: Well, that's wrong. As such, as a rhetorical device, it was particularly badly chosen. Some members of his readership were always going to react badly to it because it's possibly wrong.

The points you and I are discussing here are the true bikeshedding. Whether one should interpret such statements logically, literally, or however is not the point. Analogies should be chosen carefully lest they distract from the point, rather than enhance it. This discussion essentially proves that point.

Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you have to say.

  It's not clear to me what you of my writings you think are logical nonsense.

It's the quip about "your outrage contradicts findings in research". A contradiction occurs when it's logically impossible for two propositions to both be true at the same time. My disappointment (not outrage) is a sentiment, not a proposition; it can't contradict anything.

  And you may be disappointed, but research says
  that people form opinions very quickly. To try
  to take a stance that this should not be the
  case is a little odd. So I guess I don't
  understand your point.

How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions rather than thoughtful consideration?

Ah - I see. Thanks for the clarification. You see, when you wrote:

    ... you can't be bothered to read more than
    five words before formulating an opinion ...

... it sounded a lot like you were annoyed, bordering perhaps on being outraged. To be annoyed, or even simply disappointed, with things that simply are the case seems illogical. Research suggests that rapid formation of opinion is the norm. You were disappointed/annoyed/outraged/whatever. To be so is perhaps reasonable, but certainly counter-indicated.

(BTW - I've taken the opportunity to remove the grammatical error - hope you don't mind.)

Perhaps I shouldn't've used the word "contradiction," but since you were insisting that treating writings as pure logic is wrong, I thought it not inappropriate. "My bad" seems to be the recent vernacular for that.

With regards agreeing that the analogy is poorly chosen, and whether I have anything to say to add to that, you said this:

    I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for
    his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated
    that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed
    over whether or not fish actually realize they are
    in water.

Then here you say:

    Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was
    poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you
    have to say.

There is more than one way for an analogy to be poorly chosen.

Let P be the point you want to make. Let A be the situation you want to use as an analogy. Let f be the mapping from A to P. You understand, of course, that I'm using these purely for convenience of expression, and not because I want to be mathematically precise.

Then we have f:A->P. There are several things we want of a good analogy.

The analogy A should be something we are familiar with and agree with, thereby making it easier to see the point that is in it.

The mapping should carry that point into the new situation, thereby forming the necessary association.

Another point is that f should in some sense be "natural" and not excessively tortured.

But to me, above all, A should be true!

So there's more than one aspect of the poor chosenedness of an analogy. One is when it doesn't assist the point. One is when it's too tortured to be effective. And one is when it simply isn't true.

To me, that makes the opening comments more than just bike-shedding.

And that actually brings me to the main reason I wrote this additional comment.

You write:

    How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that
    people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions
    rather than thoughtful consideration?

I don't think it's odd to be disappointed. I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's odd to take a stance that it shouldn't be otherwise. Perhaps you don't.

But in all this my point is that ...

Good writing takes that into account and works with it, not against it.

The analogy was poorly chosen - we agree. That makes using it an example of bad writing. Good communicators need to avoid such mistakes, and understanding the thought and emotional processes inherent in their readers can help.

Your very first comment in this thread was:

    It's an analogy, not a logical conditional.

I was trying to demonstrate that that's not really the point. The point is that for many of his expected audience it's actually an actively bad analogy. Giving the author credit and trying to work out how it could be a good analogy - which is what's expected of good authors - is what leads down the never ending, unfulfilling, pointless meanderings about logic versus language, knee-jerk reactions, disappointment that things are the way they are, and so on.

Let's see if we agree on these:

* Good writing is hard.

* Working at it is worth-while.

* Having people point out your mistakes is of value.

* Bad analogies can detract from the effectiveness of a piece.

* Internet debates often get side-tracked down pointless side-issues.

* People form opinions (disappointingly) quickly

* Good writing takes that into account and tries to use it positively.

* Logic and language don't always play nice.

* We agree about more than we disagree on.

I see you comment without reading the entire thread. That link was already posted in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2673525