7.3 Non-deductive reasoning 267
Commentary
The first and perhaps most interesting analogy
is the one that J makes when she is told that
she can’t criticise what she hasn’t watched.
The analogy she draws is with watching a
public execution. This is the example
promised earlier, in which there is a major
difference between the items being compared.
K is quick to point this out: Big Brother is
different, she says, because no one is killed on
the show. J jokes that it may happen one day.
K dismisses this as ridiculous.
But J’s argument is not ridiculous, despite
the difference in physical harm to the
respective ‘victims’. At this point J is
countering the claim that people cannot
criticise something they have never watched.
But, she says, you can criticise public
executions without going to see them. If you
can criticise one you can criticise the other. J is
not seriously saying that the two spectacles are
the same in their consequences or extremity.
She is just saying that they can both
legitimately be criticised. Nonetheless you
might have felt that the analogy goes too far,
implying that reality TV is in some way brutal,
and that you can know this without even
watching it. There is room for disagreement
about this part of the argument, and that is
what makes it an interesting exercise.
The next example is more straightforward. J
says that there are psychological dangers in
the reality show; K says that psychiatrists are
there to spot them and prevent them. J draws
the analogy with ringside doctors at boxing
matches, who do not always spot the harm
before it happens. It is a fair comparison to
draw, since both are medical safeguards. If one
can fail, it is at least reasonable to question the
reliability of the other.
There is possibly a third analogy that you
may have identified towards the end: the
comparison between watching motor-racing
and watching Big Brother. But if this is an
argument, it is a fallacious one. It is basically
arguing that if it’s all right to watch cars crashJ: Give it time.
K: Don’t be ridiculous. It’s just harmless fun.
J: Now there you are wrong. Fun it may be:
that’s a matter of opinion. But Big
Brother is not harmless. People are
seriously damaged by being in that
house. Not physically, but mentally. You
can’t imprison people together like that,
knowing they are on camera day and
night, without it affecting their
personalities. You only have to look at
them when they’re interviewed
afterwards to know they are not the
same person they were when they went
in. So it’s a very dangerous game they’re
playing. Any psychiatrist will tell you that.
K: They have psychiatrists monitoring the
housemates all the time, looking out for
danger signs.
J: They have doctors watching boxing
matches, but boxers still get brain-
damaged. Some even die from their
injuries.
K: There you go again: executions, violent
sports. What are you going to drag
in next?
J: I’m just making the point that Big
Brother is a sick spectacle. And it’s
people like you who watch it that keep
it going...
K: Well if that’s the case, you are in no
position to point the finger. You watch
motor-racing.
J: So?
K: People only watch that because they’re
waiting for an accident to happen,
preferably nasty. Fatal even. And you call
that entertainment...Activity
Identify two or three examples of the use of
analogy in the above dialogue, and discuss
what they contribute to each speaker’s
argument.