A common tactic used by those promoting dubious hypotheses is to argue that the claim in question is just another example of something that is already supported by good quality evidence and is accepted by the scientific community. […]

Real scientists often draw analogies between phenomena in different areas. But they recognise that the existence of a superficial similarity between an established and a novel claim is never enough in itself to establish that the novel claim is true. They are careful to consider both the similarities and the differences between the claims. Often this will reveal that the claims differ in crucial ways that undermine the credibility of the new claim.

Although analogies may provide a fruitful means of generating new and interesting hypotheses, the final verdict must always depend upon the results of direct, empirical tests of those hypotheses.