This is also the reason why I avoid using analogies when making an argument. Usually, instead of talking about the argument itself we end up discussing under what circumstances the analogy works and when it doesn't.

Interesting point (arguments do frequently devolve into pointless meta-arguments), but I'd be surprised if you can totally avoid analogies. Analogies are extremely powerful. They're arguably all we have when it comes to reasoning.

Ironically, Segal's Law, which you seem to approve of, is itself an analogy. I don't think anyone here is really concerned with knowing what time it is or whether or not it's a good idea to wear two watches.

> Analogies are extremely powerful.

Analogies are so powerful that you can often prove both X and not(X) simply by finding the fitting analogy.

I meant analogies in the formal sense, not... straw man analogies.

No, not really. It's like, if you go to the store and realize you forgot your wallet, would you say we're talking about a wallet? No, we're talking about a trip to the store.

You should always get as much redundant information as possible, instead of willingly deluding yourself with false certainty.

In theory, the theory and the practice is the same. In practice it doesn't.

I do believe the elderly gentleman was speaking in jest, from painful experience.