Are you arguing that metaphors have no value when explaining a concept? I'm sure Shakespeare would be a whole lot more boring without the use of metaphor:
To be, or not to be: one could ponder:
Whether one's sense of self-worth increases
In direct proportion to one's ability to accept adversity,
Or to address challenges,
And in so doing solve said challenges?
Personally, I prefer the original:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
[Apologies in advance for the inevitably botched translation.]
Explaining a concept to a friendly listener is an entirely different challenge than convincing even an honest skeptic of something. Metaphors are good for the former, dangerous at best for the latter (but beware the continuum between them).
And of course entertainment is yet another game. Any sort of serious argument in a work of entertainment is probably trying to fly under the radar of skepticism anyway... Dang it. Point is, fiction is not usually a good model for rational discussion.
The comment I replied to said "You really shouldn't try to use metaphors when making an argument." Was Shakespeare not using his characters to present an argument for dramatic effect?
Shakespeare is entertaining and metaphors are fun. Do you disagree with a poem and bring up logical fallacies? Of course not, we read them for entertainment value and anything we learn is a bonus. That is separate from metaphors used when trying to discuss the nuances of an argument within the confines of trying to have a logical argument. Poems and Shakespeare aren't supposed to be logical all the time, that would be boring.
Which logical argument are you referring to? Scott Hanselman used an analogy to make an observation about javascript. It's a blog post, not a rigorous mathematical thesis. Who are you to say what rhetorical devices someone should or should not use?
