Blog Post #7:The Language of Science

20/2/2017

What are the arguments that each side makes?
Philip Ball's article "A metaphor too far" discusses how the use of metaphors in the scientific field may distort the values and contextual aspects of science. Their open-ended nature will only cause more confusion when studying the big complex topics which will make it harder to further develop scientific ideas. He uses Thibodeau's and Boroditsky's Stanford study as an example, with participants changing their answers of how crime should be dealt with in correlation to the metaphor used. Crime being described as a wild beast produced more cynical answers associated with the caging and killing of it, however, when it was described as a virus, participants leant towards more open-ended understanding and problem-solving tactics. He used this to build his own point that metaphors may create confusion leading people down the wrong path and give them the wrong ideas which will lead to misconclusions.

Caleb A.Scharf discussed the opposite side of this case in " In Defense of Metaphors In Science Writing". He discussed how metaphors may be used to make concepts more understandable with the simplifying and personalisation of the ideas at hand. These personalizations would allow people to be more incised by the subject as well as being able to work through it due to the personalizations made. It is also mentioned how the disputes of metaphors in science could just be caused by scientists wanting to stay to the facts since that is what they are more comfortable with and accustomed to.

What factors influence the language choices of writers of science?
From reading these two articles, I think the author's personal ideas, opinions and targeted audience greatly impact the form of writing they produce. Some scientific writers may write with metaphors to give the audience a better understanding or personal linkage in order to help them gain the concepts or expand on the concepts. This form of writing allows for scientists and normal people to read it and form opinions and perspectives about the topic at hand. Writing with no metaphors expects the readers to understand what they are discussing purely from facts presented, they expect the audience the form opinions based on fact which could be more a scientific base. This is supported by Scharf discussing how fellow scientists thought it was unnecessary or informal to put these concepts in metaphorical form, urging him to go back the  factual presentations they are used to.