Metaphors (was Re: litcritter bashing and the academic factory)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Hmmm well, the distinction between "up" and "down" is taught to us in
>primary school, and up quarks don't point in the opposite direction to down
>quarks, so I guess Murray Gell-Mann's a worthless faker too.  And
>superstrings aren't strings, so that's bad news for Hawking.  And indeed,
>imaginary numbers aren't imaginary, which is bad news for someone else.
>I've never understood what's up with science-spod types who refuse to learn
>a few technical terms, apply themselves and accept some metaphorical
>language when it's someone else's field, but demand limitless indulgence in
>their own.
>
>dd

It seems to me that the distinction that needs to be made doesn't lie in
whether or not one uses metaphors, whether or not one borrows metaphors
from another discipline, whether or not one borrows metaphors from everyday
language, etc.

What matters is whether metaphors serve to advance scientific understanding
(e.g. to be used as a guiding light to move investigation in the direction
of a better explanation) or end up becoming mental blocks, leaving us stuck
with various errors (which often come with pernicious political
implications).

Yoshie