@aviationdoctor.eth
Analogies are indispensable to communicating scientific concepts foreign to a given audience.
But analogies never map 1:1 to the territory. They are only analogous to the real phenomenon in some specific ways (corresponding to the science communicator’s intent), and not in others.
Yet, audiences are prone to extrapolating analogies in unpredictable ways that no longer apply to the phenomenon.
If the science communicator now repudiates the analogy, it confuses the audience; if they don’t, it leaves the audience with an objectively wrong mental model.
Sean Carroll uses the example of inflating a balloon to model the Big Bang. It correctly shows spacetime itself (the balloon’s surface) stretching, stars drawn on the surface moving apart without any obvious center of expansion, and distant stars moving away even faster (Hubble’s law).
But anyone taking the analogy too literally will also see stars getting larger, the balloon expanding *into* some external volume, and spacetime being 2D. All of which are not analogous to cosmic inflation.
So a skilled science communicator must not only use audience-appropriate analogies (by age, level of knowledge, domain of competence, etc), but also be very clear about the specific ways in which the analogy applies to the real world