So, the question is “Is Ratbert making another bad analogy?” I believe the answer to this question depends on the mapping between the source and target domain.
Quick refresher: “Source domain” refers to the domain/knowledge from which the information is being “imported” so to speak. In the case of the cartoon, the source domain would be knowledge about the aging of good wine.
“Target domain” refers to the domain/knowledge to which the information is imported or the analogy is being drawn. In the cartoon, knowledge of Ratbert is the target domain.
“Mapping” refers to the drawing of correspondences between the source and target domain. In the cartoon, this would involve establishing the ways in which Ratbert is like a fine wine and herein lies the determination of whether this is a good or a bad analogy.
Ratbert is making the correct inference for this particular analogy – that Dogbert is saying that initially Ratbert’s wisdom may be lacking but over time will improve with age.
However, in verifying this inference, Dogbert reveals that there is more to the analogy that meets the eye.
He is probably quite correct in making the statement that the analogy holds to the extent that Ratbert resembles a grape. The crux of the matter is exactly HOW Ratbert resembles the grape.
If the resemblance is confined to the fact that Ratbert is round, covered in a thin skin, and grape-colored, then the analogy falls apart. However, if it is because Ratbert shares some of the structural characteristics with grapes that result in fine wine (thick skin, late to ripen, possessing complex flavors that are only revealed with age), the analogy holds. In other words, analogies succeed, not because of physical similarities between the source and the target domain but because of structural similarities.
For Ratbert’s wisdom to age to perfection with time, the wine analogy would suggest that it would help for him to have a “thick skin” (the better to withstand the ravages of the environment), be “slow to ripen” (play, not take life too seriously, take each stage of life as it comes and gain a range of diverse experiences in the process) and be a complex individual with many facets to his personality and many interests.
The structural mapping between source and target domain is the critical component to the success of an analogy. When the mapping only involves mapping the surface features between domains, you have a useless or even misguided analogy at worst and a trivial analogy at best.
Insight, inferences, problem solutions,and effective communication are all made possible by the structured mapping of correspondences between the source and target domain.
The greater the depth and complexity of the mapping – the better the result. Not an easy task by any means but one well worth the effort.