The Language of Science

               The two texts detail how metaphors are used in science, to either the benefit or disservice of it. Phillip Bail claims in his article that imagery can change the way science or a concept is viewed by people, and gives the example of crime and metaphor to emphasise his point. In the same article Bail argues that the famed author Richard Dawkins’ use of the term ‘selfish gene’ supported the idea of “a Darwinian world that is uncaring to the point of being positively nasty”, and states that this idea may have caused increased resistance/dislike of science. However, Bail does acknowledge that metaphors may be needed to teach science and make it less boring to people, however, at the same time he cautions against taking metaphor at its face value, and looking at the scientific knowledge and meaning behind it.

               With Caleb Scharf’s article, his argument can be described as arguing that the use of metaphor is essential in science. He argues that metaphors help people, even scientists, stay ‘attached’ to the knowledge being discussed, and can give almost ‘unpreceptable’ knowledge, such as quantum physics, or black holes, a grounding in our familiar reality. Scharf argues that if the use of metaphor helps someone’s understanding of a topic, why should it be condemned? Metaphor in science, to this author, is about communicating knowledge, and has, in his words, ‘noble intent’.

               The factors that seem to influence the language choices in science, seems to be mostly related to communication. Literary devices such as metaphors and similes are used to invoke the reader’s imagination, which is supposed to aid in their understanding of an issue. However, as Phillip Bail pointed out in his article, perhaps the metaphor can ‘overtake’ the original knowledge and cause it to be almost exclusively viewed through the lens of the metaphor rather than the knowledge itself. To communicate scientific knowledge in an understandable and possibly more effective manner (depending on the audience), metaphors and other literary devices are necessary (to those sharing Phillip Bail’s viewpoint, it would be more aptly described as a ‘necessary evil’). In the end, we are left with a question of: ‘What do we value more; extreme precision or more understandable communication?’