CONSTRUCTION VS ANALOGY = TRUTH VS COMMUNICATION If you haven’t stated a constru

CONSTRUCTION VS ANALOGY = TRUTH VS COMMUNICATION

If you haven’t stated a construction, even if you stated it as a function (summary) then you have merely stated an analogy. An analogy is merely that and nothing more. Analogies are useful for the purpose of communication. They function as useful means of transferring properties between entities. However, if you cant state your analogy as a construction, then you cannot make a truth claim about it, since you cannot demonstrate that you possess the knowledge that you claim to. Analogies are informative but they are not equivalent to truth claims. Truth, as in performative truth: your testimony, requires that you possess knowledge of construction. Otherwise you’re just communicating your level of understanding, not truth.

People should ask a lot more questions, and fewer statements. This is the theory of performative truth. We should assume that the majority of statements are merely questions, structured as statements, for the purpose of brevity, and avoiding the accusatory implications of declarations that are an unfortunate and distorting challenge to all debates.

( I need to write a bit more about the problem of ‘good manners’ in debate (avoiding accusation and blame) as an accidental cause of a great deal of obscurantism. )