Question on the scope of Prime Directive

[JRTStarlight]

On the other hand, it occurs to me you might be complaining (too strong a word, I know) since you fear some viewers might come away erroneously thinking the Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens comparison was actually nearly identical to the Valakian/Menk situation, and so depart from the show with a warped idea of our own prehistory. If so, that's another matter, and probably not the fault of the show since such a conclusion they WERE saying that, when they weren't or didn't, would be erroneous.

Similarly, you might feel that way about my "considered" sober or insightful analysis earlier and feel I was saying those situations were identical, when I wasn't.

 

[Spot261]

These apparent hallmarks are of your own design or imagination, I suspect.

Nope, not at all.
I am making a distinction between the casual, everyday use of the term "analogy" and the sense in which a critical thinker should analyse them more closely. I was hoping for the latter.

This is a shame since you put so much time and effort into your posts

 

[JRTStarlight]

Well, I'm happy making the distinction between a casual or colloquial use of the term "theory" and the more precise scientific use, and know well the difference between a guess, an educated guess, a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific law, but I must confess I'm not familiar with some huge distinction to the degree you seem to be suggesting exists for the term "analogy." It can be close or not, good or bad, better or worse, depending, but I'm not sure it can achieve a certain exactitude wherein it crosses the line from colloquial use to critical thinker use, whatever that is.

An analogy is to demonstrate a similarity in order to clarify something. If what wasn't clear is that this isn't just something that happens to others, but could also happen to you, Phlox's analogy is spot on. If you wish to draw other inferences from it, you might run afoul of the fact the two situations are also dissimilar in many regards. It just depends on what you are trying to demonstrate. Phlox wanted to demonstrate to the captain "the other side" of the argument - not just the Valakian's problem, for which they went there, but also the Menk's problem, which the doctor discovered - and it WAS a problem. But somehow, I think you said you felt they weren't even in competition. If you want to analyze a word more precisely, analyze that one.