Advertisement

Analogical Information Processing within Scientific Metaphors

  • Daniel Rothbart
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 197)

Abstract

The thesis for the epistemic indispensability of scientific metaphor has no shortage of proponents.1 Scientific metaphors are linked to concept formation,2 scientific explanation,3 theoretical confirmation,4 and scientific models.5 All of these proclamations assume a linguistic conception of scientific theory, which focuses on systems of statements as the product of inquiry. Yet few advocates of scientific metaphor explicitly address metaphor’s value from a problem solving orientation to science. The view that scientific inquiry reduces to the formulation and resolution of problems avoids the artificial and rigid picture suggested by the linguistic conception of science, at least according to many philosophers.6 But in what respects, if any, is the structure of scientific problem solving indispensably metaphoric? To my knowledge no advocate of scientific metaphor addresses this question in detail.

Keywords

Semantic Feature Scientific Problem Conceptual Problem Solution Path Primary Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    W. H. Leatherdale: 1974, The Role of Analogy, Model and Metaphor in Science, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Black: 1962, Models and Metaphors, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Chapter XIII.Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    R. Boyd: 1979, “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?”, in A. Ortony, (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    S. Buchanan: 1962, Poetry and Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    M. Black, Models and Metaphors, op. cit. D. Berggren: 1962–63, “The use and abuse of metaphor”, Review of Metaphysics 16, 237–58, 450–72.Google Scholar
  6. 3a.
    M. Hesse: 1980, Revolutions and Reconstruction in the Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  7. 3b.
    J. North: 1980, “Science and analogy”, in M. Grmek, R. Cohen and G. Cimino (eds.), On Scientific Discovery, Boston Studies in Philosophy of Sciences, Vol. 34, D. Reidel, Boston, pp. 115–140.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    M. Hesse: 1966, Models and Analogies in Science, University of Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
  9. 4a.
    M. Hesse: 1974, The Structure of Scientific Inference, University of California, Berkeley, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    D. Berggren, “The use and abuse of metaphor”, op. cit. M. Black, Models and Metaphors, op. cit. M. Hesse, The Structure of Scientific Inference, op. cit. E. Hutten: 1956, The Language of Modern Physics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    N. R. Hanson: 1958, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 6a.
    L. Laudan: 1977, Progress and Its Problems, California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  13. 6b.
    T. Nickles: 1980, “Introductory essay: Scientific discovery and the future of philosophy of science”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland. S. Toulmin: 1972, Human Understanding, Vol. I, Princeton University, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 7.
    T. Nickles, “Introductory essay”, op. cit., p. 31.Google Scholar
  15. 8.
    L. Laudan, Progress and Its Problems, op. cit., p. 49.Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    T. Nickles: 1978, “Scientific problems and constraints”, in P. Asquith and I. Hacking (eds.), PSA 1978, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 139.Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    Ibid., p. 141.Google Scholar
  18. 11.
  19. 12.
    T. Nickles, “Introductory essay”, op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar
  20. 13.
    A. Newell and H. Simon: 1972, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  21. 14.
  22. 15.
    H. Simon: 1977, Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Methods of Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, p. 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 16.
    P. Langley, H. Simon, G. Bradshaw, J. Zytkow: 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    J. Sneed: 1987, “Inductivist exercises”, Science 230 (June 5), 1958.Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    T. Nickles: 1980, “Can scientific constraints be violated rationally?”, in Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality, op. cit., pp. 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 19.
    Newell and Simon, Human Problem Solving, op. cit., p. 819.Google Scholar
  27. 20.
    J. G. Carbonell: 1982, “Metaphor: An inescapable phenomenon in natural language comprehension”, in W. G. Lehnert and M. Ringle (eds.), Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, p. 430.Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    I. Sabra: 1967, Theories of Light From Descartes to Newton, Oldbourne, London, Chapter X.Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    I. Newton: 1952, Opticks, Based on 4th Edition, 1930. Dover, New York, p. 125.Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    I. Newton: 1959, “Newton to Oldenburg: 7 December 1675”, in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Volume I: 1661–1675, H. W. Turnbull (ed.), Cambridge University, Cambridge, p. 376.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    Ibid., p. 377 and fn. 14. Cf. Newton, Opticks, op. cit., Book I, Part ii, Prop, III, and Book II, Part i, Obs. 14.Google Scholar
  32. 25.
    M. Black: 1979, “More about metaphors”, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, op. cit., pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
  33. 26.
    P. McReynolds: 1978, “The clock metaphor in the history of psychology”, in T. Nickles (eds.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 60, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, p. 101.Google Scholar
  34. 27.
    L. J. Cohen and A. Margalit: 1972, “The role of inductive reasoning in the interpretation of metaphor”, in Semantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), 2nd edition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 722–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 28.
    S. R. Levin: 1977, The Semantics of Metaphor, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  36. 29.
    R. J. Matthews: 1977, “Concerning a’linguistic theory’ of metaphor”, Foundations of Language 7, 413–25.Google Scholar
  37. 30.
    G. Stern: 1931, Meaning and Change of Meaning, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    Cohen and Margalit, “The role of inductive reasoning in the interpretation of metaphor”, op. cit., p. 735.Google Scholar
  39. 32.
    Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning, op. cit., p. 292.Google Scholar
  40. 33.
    Levin, The Semantics of Metaphor, op. cit., Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  41. 34.
    Ibid., p. 33.Google Scholar
  42. 35.
    Levin, The Semantics of Metaphor, op. cit., Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  43. 34.
    Black, “More about metaphor”, op. cit., pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
  44. 36.
    J. Lyons: 1977, Semantics, Vol. I., Cambridge University, Cambridge, p. 267.Google Scholar
  45. 37.
    D. Rothbart: 1984, “The semantics of metaphor and the structure of science”, Philosophy of Science 51, 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 38.
    J. D. Becker: 1969, “The modeling of simple analogic and inductive processes in a semantic memory system”, in D. E. Walker and E. M. Norton (eds.), Proceedings of the International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence, MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C., p. 659.Google Scholar
  47. 39.
    P. Gouk: 1986, “Newton and music: From the microcosm to the macrocosm”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science: The Dubrovnik Papers I, 48.Google Scholar
  48. 40.
    M. Black, “More about metaphors”, op. cit. Google Scholar
  49. 41.
    P. Kitcher: 1981, “Explanatory unification”, Philosophy of Science 48, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 42.
    M. Hesse, The Structure of Scientific Inference, op. cit., p. 212. Within his computational philosophy of science, P. Thagard shows that each scientific explanation is grounded on analogical relations between the explanandum and explanans. P. Thagard forthcoming: A Computational Philosophy of Science, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chapter 3. His position parallels M. Hesse’ conception of explanation as metaphoric redescription, although Hesse’ philosophical orientation obviously is not computational. Hesse: Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, op. cit., pp. 120–123.Google Scholar
  51. 43.
    D. Berggren: 1962–63, “The use and abuse of metaphor”, op. cit. Google Scholar
  52. 43a.
    C. Turbayne: 1962, The Myth of Metaphor, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
  53. 44.
    E. Rosch and C. Mervis: 1973, “Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories”, Cognitive Psychology 7, 602.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Rothbart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGeorge Mason UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations