Friam

metaphor and talking across skill levels

Classic

List

Threaded

15 messages Options

Nick Thompson

metaphor and talking across skill levels

Colleagues,

As groups dedicated conversations across many boundaries of expertise, I thought this article might interest you. It can be found at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272997521_Varying_Use_of_Conceptual_Metaphors_across_Levels_of_Expertise_in_Thermodynamics?showFulltext=true

One of its authors, Tamer Amin, was a Clark Phd who worked on how students understand heat and light and natural selection.

Here is the abstract:

Many studies have previously focused on how people with different levels of expertise solve physics problems. In early work, focus was on characterizing differences between experts and novices and a key finding was the central role that propositionally expressed principles and laws play in expert, but not novice, problem solving. A more recent line of research has focused on characterizing continuity between experts and novices at the level of non-propositional knowledge structures and processes such as image-schemas, imagistic simulation and analogical reasoning. This study contributes to an emerging literature addressing the coordination of both propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures and processes in the development of expertise. Specifically, in this paper we compare problem solving across two levels of expertise – undergraduate students of chemistry and PhD students in physical chemistry – identifying differences in how conceptual metaphors are used (or not) to coordinate propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures in the context of solving problems on entropy. It is hypothesized that the acquisition of expertise involves learning to coordinate the use of conceptual metaphors to interpret propositional (linguistic and mathematical) knowledge and apply it to specific problem situations. Moreover, we suggest that with increasing expertise, the use of conceptual metaphors involves a greater degree of subjective engagement with physical entities and processes. Implications for research on learning and instructional practice are discussed.

As you all know, I have taken the greatest pleasure in teasing my “hard” science colleagues about their use of psychological terms of art such as “attraction, wanting, etc.” to articulate physical concepts. I think Amin and his collaborators are going to tell us that those metaphors ain’t for nuthin’.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Nick -

Interesting paper... I've only skimmed it, but it does attend to the intersection of a few of my projects and will spend a little more time with it... it lead me to some other interesting collateral material such as: http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-1/ess_laszlo.pdf

I'm curious if Bruce or Ruth have anything to say on this topic... I'm not sure if they are still on this list or if they fled exclusively to WedTech? Bruce related to me at roughly a year ago, his reasons for believing that the "hydraulic flow" metaphor for dc circuits was flawed. He had a simulation which demonstrated some inconsistencies between his model of electrons (and holes?) moving in a conductor diverged from water molecules moving in piping. I seem to remember that his distinction was compelling, but *still* probably not relevant to the novice learning basic electrical circuits.

This opens the question of how we work with knowledge and start simple enough to understand easily, but then eventually graduate to a more complete model of the phenomena in question?

This article makes the distinction well, but I don't see it offering a methodology or even insight into how to evolve one's understanding from novice to expert... how to manage the series of metaphors (or perhaps, series of levels of sophistication in a common overarching metaphor from which the others are derived or inherit from?) I have in fact been interested for some time about the relationship of Alexanders' "Pattern Languages" (which is where the GO4 drew the inspiration for their "Design Patterns" ca 1993?), Inheritence in Object Oriented Programming, and Conceptual Metaphors.

- Steve

Colleagues,

As groups dedicated conversations across many boundaries of expertise, I thought this article might interest you. It can be found at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272997521_Varying_Use_of_Conceptual_Metaphors_across_Levels_of_Expertise_in_Thermodynamics?showFulltext=true

One of its authors, Tamer Amin, was a Clark Phd who worked on how students understand heat and light and natural selection.

Here is the abstract:

Many studies have previously focused on how people with different levels of expertise solve physics problems. In early work, focus was on characterizing differences between experts and novices and a key finding was the central role that propositionally expressed principles and laws play in expert, but not novice, problem solving. A more recent line of research has focused on characterizing continuity between experts and novices at the level of non-propositional knowledge structures and processes such as image-schemas, imagistic simulation and analogical reasoning. This study contributes to an emerging literature addressing the coordination of both propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures and processes in the development of expertise. Specifically, in this paper we compare problem solving across two levels of expertise – undergraduate students of chemistry and PhD students in physical chemistry – identifying differences in how conceptual metaphors are used (or not) to coordinate propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures in the context of solving problems on entropy. It is hypothesized that the acquisition of expertise involves learning to coordinate the use of conceptual metaphors to interpret propositional (linguistic and mathematical) knowledge and apply it to specific problem situations. Moreover, we suggest that with increasing expertise, the use of conceptual metaphors involves a greater degree of subjective engagement with physical entities and processes. Implications for research on learning and instructional practice are discussed.

As you all know, I have taken the greatest pleasure in teasing my “hard” science colleagues about their use of psychological terms of art such as “attraction, wanting, etc.” to articulate physical concepts. I think Amin and his collaborators are going to tell us that those metaphors ain’t for nuthin’.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Administrator

They have fled.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

Interesting paper... I've only skimmed it, but it does attend to the intersection of a few of my projects and will spend a little more time with it... it lead me to some other interesting collateral material such as: http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-1/ess_laszlo.pdf

I'm curious if Bruce or Ruth have anything to say on this topic... I'm not sure if they are still on this list or if they fled exclusively to WedTech? Bruce related to me at roughly a year ago, his reasons for believing that the "hydraulic flow" metaphor for dc circuits was flawed. He had a simulation which demonstrated some inconsistencies between his model of electrons (and holes?) moving in a conductor diverged from water molecules moving in piping. I seem to remember that his distinction was compelling, but *still* probably not relevant to the novice learning basic electrical circuits.

This opens the question of how we work with knowledge and start simple enough to understand easily, but then eventually graduate to a more complete model of the phenomena in question?

This article makes the distinction well, but I don't see it offering a methodology or even insight into how to evolve one's understanding from novice to expert... how to manage the series of metaphors (or perhaps, series of levels of sophistication in a common overarching metaphor from which the others are derived or inherit from?) I have in fact been interested for some time about the relationship of Alexanders' "Pattern Languages" (which is where the GO4 drew the inspiration for their "Design Patterns" ca 1993?), Inheritence in Object Oriented Programming, and Conceptual Metaphors.

- Steve
Colleagues,

As groups dedicated conversations across many boundaries of expertise, I thought this article might interest you. It can be found at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272997521_Varying_Use_of_Conceptual_Metaphors_across_Levels_of_Expertise_in_Thermodynamics?showFulltext=true

One of its authors, Tamer Amin, was a Clark Phd who worked on how students understand heat and light and natural selection.

Here is the abstract:

Many studies have previously focused on how people with different levels of expertise solve physics problems. In early work, focus was on characterizing differences between experts and novices and a key finding was the central role that propositionally expressed principles and laws play in expert, but not novice, problem solving. A more recent line of research has focused on characterizing continuity between experts and novices at the level of non-propositional knowledge structures and processes such as image-schemas, imagistic simulation and analogical reasoning. This study contributes to an emerging literature addressing the coordination of both propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures and processes in the development of expertise. Specifically, in this paper we compare problem solving across two levels of expertise – undergraduate students of chemistry and PhD students in physical chemistry – identifying differences in how conceptual metaphors are used (or not) to coordinate propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures in the context of solving problems on entropy. It is hypothesized that the acquisition of expertise involves learning to coordinate the use of conceptual metaphors to interpret propositional (linguistic and mathematical) knowledge and apply it to specific problem situations. Moreover, we suggest that with increasing expertise, the use of conceptual metaphors involves a greater degree of subjective engagement with physical entities and processes. Implications for research on learning and instructional practice are discussed.

As you all know, I have taken the greatest pleasure in teasing my “hard” science colleagues about their use of psychological terms of art such as “attraction, wanting, etc.” to articulate physical concepts. I think Amin and his collaborators are going to tell us that those metaphors ain’t for nuthin’.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Speaking of metaphors: recently I thought that metaphors and poems are a bit like the gems of language. As you know gems are rare and valuable and have often a highly symmetrical structure. The rhymes in poems mirror the symmetries of words, while metaphors and analogies mirror the (timeless) symmetries of ideas.

Take for example the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. I think this is one of the metaphors in "Metaphors We Live By" from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It indicates certain similarities and symmetries in the ideas behind the concepts for "life" and "journey". There is a beginning and an end connected by long winding path, etc. So basically metaphors are all about symmetries which let you describe one idea in terms of another.

-J.

Sent from my Tricorder

Nick Thompson

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Jochen,

Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

I am further made very nervous with any implication that literature “owns” metaphor whereas scientists are given to plain speech. I think this way of think VASTLY under states the role of metaphor in science. Think Natural Selection, for instance. Also, I have often wondered if a metaphor with magnetism lay behind Newton’s thinking on gravity. Lodestones were of great interest to scientists in Court at the time because of their usefulness in navigation, but also as a curiousity. Lakoff and Nunen (?) describe the central role of metaphors in the development of mathematics. Peirce’s emphasis on “sign” places something very like metaphor at the center of all scientific thought.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 1:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Friam; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels

-J.

Sent from my Tricorder

Steve Smith

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Jochen -

Interesting use of a simile to explain the use of metaphor!   METAPHORS ARE LIKE GEMS ...

I wonder about the symmetries you suggest, however.   In my experience Metaphorical mappings tend to be more complete in one direction than the other.   LIFE IS A JOURNEY is not the same as A JOURNEY IS LIFE ITSELF, and whether by convention or some other more subtle reason, the former seems more apt than the latter.

In my conception of conceptual metaphors, both source (JOURNEY) and target (LIFE) domains are infinite... that is to say that the ideas one can use when describing LIFE or JOURNEY is ultimately infinite. I've not found this described in the literature one way or the other. Perhaps, despite both being infinite, we tend to think of LIFE as being of a larger infinity than JOURNEY since in fact, one's LIFE can contain many JOURNEYs.
-------------
Nick et. al. -

I agree with you that metaphor transcends simple figurative and imaginative speech in literature.   I'm a strong proponent of Lakoff and Johnson's Thesis that all of language and understanding is facilitated by the use of metaphor, eventually grounding out in embodied image schemas (fundamental patterns understandable as direct perceptual responses to environment).

I don't know what to say to you about "symmetry" except that "the same on left and right" is a "good start". Pieces of pie are an example of "rotational symmetry" so rather than "same" on "left and right" it is "same" around a "center point of rotation".    Symmetries can lie in other variables than in simple geometry.    Perhaps you *do* have an expansive sense of symmetry but are sometimes bamboozled by the way some (e.g. Guerin) might invoke it in a much more subtle context than you are used to (e.g. "chaos and symmetry breaking").

Science *does* pride itself in being "plain spoken" and I think that is for a good reason.   But that is not the same that saying that there is no place for metaphor in scientific discourse. In fact, I suspect you and I would agree that it is at least "very useful" and I would claim (following Lakoff, Johnson, Nunez, et al) that it is unavoidable.   The "good reason" I suggest is a corollary to Occam's Razor or better yet Einstein's admonition "as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Figurative speech (including metaphor) tends to create complex images and relationships between domains... in Scientific Discourse, one must be very careful to not create unintended implications through the use of metaphor.

I believe that usual use of metaphor in scientific discourse is most effective for it's explanatory or persuasive power. It helps us explain something we (the Scientist) already understands well to a layperson with limited background to draw on for understanding.   We appeal to a metaphorical mapping with a familiar source domain (e.g.   DC electrical circuits/flow can be understood as a hydraulic (pressure, velocity, flow, cross-section, volume, etc.).   As Bruce would point out (had he not fled the room), there are aspects of this analogy which can be shown to be incorrect and even misleading, however, for many purposes, it is not only sufficient, but highly convenient way to think of it.

My interest, however, is in it's core role in all discourse but more to the point, in Scientific Inquiry.   Lakoff and Nunez' claims regarding the fundamental embodiment of mathematics suggest this quite strongly.   To the extent that mathematics is the language of Science and that Mathematical concepts are built on top of direct embodied experiences using the mechanisms of metaphor, I think it's a done deal, albeit a bit trite by some measures. And even more to the point, I'm interested in *how* to use metaphor in a formal and leveraged manner to increase understanding of otherwise intractable scientific questions.   That is to say, how to gain intuition about problems, how to help with hypothesis generation, how to help with synthesis of data and understanding from previously distinct fields of study.

just my $.02,

- Steve

Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

I am further made very nervous with any implication that literature “owns” metaphor whereas scientists are given to plain speech. I think this way of think VASTLY under states the role of metaphor in science. Think Natural Selection, for instance. Also, I have often wondered if a metaphor with magnetism lay behind Newton’s thinking on gravity. Lodestones were of great interest to scientists in Court at the time because of their usefulness in navigation, but also as a curiousity. Lakoff and Nunen (?) describe the central role of metaphors in the development of mathematics. Peirce’s emphasis on “sign” places something very like metaphor at the center of all scientific thought.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 1:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Friam; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels

Speaking of metaphors: recently I thought that metaphors and poems are a bit like the gems of language. As you know gems are rare and valuable and have often a highly symmetrical structure. The rhymes in poems mirror the symmetries of words, while metaphors and analogies mirror the (timeless) symmetries of ideas.

Take for example the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. I think this is one of the metaphors in "Metaphors We Live By" from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It indicates certain similarities and symmetries in the ideas behind the concepts for "life" and "journey". There is a beginning and an end connected by long winding path, etc. So basically metaphors are all about symmetries which let you describe one idea in terms of another.

-J.

Sent from my Tricorder
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ep ropella

[ SPAM ] Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I feel like I'm stating the obvious.... but ya never know.

Symmetry means the application of a measure produces the same result
both before and after a transformation. The word "symmetry" is
meaningless without reference to a particular transformation and a
particular measure. If metaphor is a transformation (mapping) from one
thing to another, then it will (or won't) exhibit symmetry under any
particular transformation. Symmetry can be softened to similarity (or
any number of concepts of equivalence), which (I think) is much more
relevant to the traditional use of the word "metaphor". If you do
soften it, though, your error accumulates and we probably lose
commutativity, associativity, transitivity, etc. (And is a well-behaved
metaphor really considered a good metaphor? Or is it merely a
tautology? Embrace Error!)

I think what makes (some) scientists plain speaking is when they talk
about what they actually _did_ rather than what they intended to do,
what they wanted to do, what random nonsense was bouncing around in
their head when they did what they did, etc. Metaphor seems to play a
role in all the latter, but not much in the former. What you actually
do is not metaphorical, despite the mental gymnastics you engaged in to
arrive at doing what you did.

On 03/09/2015 12:52 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

On 03/09/2015 12:22 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Speaking of metaphors: recently I thought that metaphors and poems are a bit like the gems of language. As you know gems are rare and valuable and have often a highly symmetrical structure. The rhymes in poems mirror the symmetries of words, while metaphors and analogies mirror the (timeless) symmetries of ideas.
>
> Take for example the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. I think this is one of the metaphors in "Metaphors We Live By" from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It indicates certain similarities and symmetries in the ideas behind the concepts for "life" and "journey". There is a beginning and an end connected by long winding path, etc. So basically metaphors are all about symmetries which let you describe one idea in terms of another.

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Eric Charles-2

Re: [ SPAM ] Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Steve said

----------

Science *does* pride itself in being "plain spoken" and I think that is for a good reason. But that is not the same that saying that there is no place for metaphor in scientific discourse....
I believe that usual use of metaphor in scientific discourse is most effective for it's explanatory or persuasive power. It helps us explain something we (the Scientist) already understands well to a layperson with limited background to draw on for understanding.

-----------

I suspect Nick would argue that this creates a false impression that the scientist isn't in essentially the same situation as the lay person relative to metaphor. Yes, it is certainly true that the scientist often invokes metaphors with a lay person which they might not invoke with another scientist, but metaphors are still used with the other scientist. In the latter context, far from being a simplified summary of what we already know, the metaphors are crucial for the generation of hypotheses that guide future research.

I have a possibly naive view that most scientists can do this while still keeping track of what is speculative metaphor vs. description. That said, in psychology, much trouble is caused by people constantly forgetting what is metaphorical. B. F. Skinner's most important critique of hypothetical constructs in psychology went something like this:

Hypothetical constructs seem crucial for advancement in both hard and soft sciences. However, psychology has a somewhat unique problem, in which the next generation of psychologists always seems to forget they are hypothetical. This problem is so consistent, and has such dire consequences, that we would be better off handicapping ourselves by giving them up.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Lab Manager
Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190
email: [hidden email]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:22 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

I feel like I'm stating the obvious.... but ya never know.

Symmetry means the application of a measure produces the same result both before and after a transformation. The word "symmetry" is meaningless without reference to a particular transformation and a particular measure. If metaphor is a transformation (mapping) from one thing to another, then it will (or won't) exhibit symmetry under any particular transformation. Symmetry can be softened to similarity (or any number of concepts of equivalence), which (I think) is much more relevant to the traditional use of the word "metaphor". If you do soften it, though, your error accumulates and we probably lose commutativity, associativity, transitivity, etc. (And is a well-behaved metaphor really considered a good metaphor? Or is it merely a tautology? Embrace Error!)

I think what makes (some) scientists plain speaking is when they talk about what they actually _did_ rather than what they intended to do, what they wanted to do, what random nonsense was bouncing around in their head when they did what they did, etc. Metaphor seems to play a role in all the latter, but not much in the former. What you actually do is not metaphorical, despite the mental gymnastics you engaged in to arrive at doing what you did.

On 03/09/2015 12:52 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

On 03/09/2015 12:22 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Speaking of metaphors: recently I thought that metaphors and poems are a bit like the gems of language. As you know gems are rare and valuable and have often a highly symmetrical structure. The rhymes in poems mirror the symmetries of words, while metaphors and analogies mirror the (timeless) symmetries of ideas.

Take for example the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. I think this is one of the metaphors in "Metaphors We Live By" from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It indicates certain similarities and symmetries in the ideas behind the concepts for "life" and "journey". There is a beginning and an end connected by long winding path, etc. So basically metaphors are all about symmetries which let you describe one idea in terms of another.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847" target="_blank">971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ep ropella

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

On 03/09/2015 05:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I gather that "symmetry" is itself a metaphor, subject both to the joys and pains thereof.

I suggest symmetry has a non-metaphorical definition. But I admit the word can be successfully _abused_. ;-)

> I never could find a plain spoken way to describe "above and below the plane of the molecule" without resort to the very terms I was trying to explain, until I thought of restaurant staff stacking six sided tables on top of one another to facilitate cleaning. Only then did the three dimensionality of traditional "ring diagrams" make any sense to me.

But, see, _my_ problem is that I don't regard the concept "above and below the plane of the molecule" to be science. That's ideological hoo-ha bouncing around in someone's mind. The science is what's done with the hands (and feet, nose, etc.). There is no plain spoken way to describe concepts. There are only plain spoken ways to describe _things_ ... real things that you can touch and leave a bruise when someone throws it at you.

To me, metaphor doesn't seem fundamental to science because science is about what you _do_, not what you think. It's way more scientific to talk about stacking tables than it is to talk about "above and below the molecule".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Ok Glen,

Imagine that I am standing before you holding a flat object, such as a
notebook in my left hand, flat side to you. I hold a small object, let's
say an artgum eraser, in my right hand above and behind the notebook. I
release the eraser. Please give me a "plain-spoken" description of what you
would see.

Thanks,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:31 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels

On 03/09/2015 05:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I gather that "symmetry" is itself a metaphor, subject both to the joys
and pains thereof.

I suggest symmetry has a non-metaphorical definition. But I admit the word
can be successfully _abused_. ;-)

> I never could find a plain spoken way to describe "above and below the
plane of the molecule" without resort to the very terms I was trying to
explain, until I thought of restaurant staff stacking six sided tables on
top of one another to facilitate cleaning. Only then did the three
dimensionality of traditional "ring diagrams" make any sense to me.

But, see, _my_ problem is that I don't regard the concept "above and below
the plane of the molecule" to be science. That's ideological hoo-ha
bouncing around in someone's mind. The science is what's done with the
hands (and feet, nose, etc.). There is no plain spoken way to describe
concepts. There are only plain spoken ways to describe _things_ ... real
things that you can touch and leave a bruise when someone throws it at you.

To me, metaphor doesn't seem fundamental to science because science is about
what you _do_, not what you think. It's way more scientific to talk about
stacking tables than it is to talk about "above and below the molecule".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I just meant symmetry in the broad sense, for example
that something has a symmetry if it has the regular form
or a crystal structure. Crystals are very symmetrical, the
atoms of a crystal are arranged in a regular, rigid grid.
There are various crystal symmetries, just like there are
various rhymes like Hexameter and Pentameter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

In mathematics, "symmetry" as everything else has a
very precise definition, for example it could mean that an
object is invariant to a transformation or can be mapped
on another in some kind of isomorphism. But it could
also just mean that two objects have the same size, for
example a triangle with two sides of equal length is
certainly symmetrical and has an axis of symmetry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry

What I find surprising is that even in ordinary
language symmetries seem to be very important,
if you consider metaphors as symmetries in the
world of ideas, i.e. as little gems. Some books are
so full of gems that they shine and sparkle. You
can mine them for insights, ideas and metaphors.

It is true, authors and writers - literature in general -
"own" metaphors, just as scientists own mathematics.
Ernest Rutherford said "All science is either physics
or stamp collecting". For writers and authors the stamps
are metaphors. They collect metaphors and use them
to decorate their books and works. Many have their
own metaphor collection which they have acquired
over time in notebooks, diaries, etc.

Some scientific theories are nearly entirely based on
metaphors - esp. evolution which is based on
"natural selection" and "selfish genes".
Some of our oldest books, the holy books of the big
religions, are based on metaphors as well. The "house
of god" or the "son of god" are metaphors just like
the "selfish gene".

Poems are in turn so condensed that they are like
gems themselves. Take for example Ralph Waldo Emerson
who writes "If the sages ask thee why
This charm is wasted on the earth and sky,
Tell them, dear, that if eyes were made for seeing,
Then beauty is its own excuse for being"

-J.

On 03/09/2015 08:52 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

I am further made very nervous with any implication that literature “owns” metaphor whereas scientists are given to plain speech. I think this way of think VASTLY under states the role of metaphor in science. Think Natural Selection, for instance. Also, I have often wondered if a metaphor with magnetism lay behind Newton’s thinking on gravity. Lodestones were of great interest to scientists in Court at the time because of their usefulness in navigation, but also as a curiousity. Lakoff and Nunen (?) describe the central role of metaphors in the development of mathematics. Peirce’s emphasis on “sign” places something very like metaphor at the center of all scientific thought.

Nick

Nick Thompson

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Jochem,

Thanks for this clarification.

So, I take it that a metaphor is an example of a “symmetry” [sensu frommi] because there are some invariant properties when we move from the source of the metaphor to the target.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels

Historically, I have had terrible trouble with the way some folks employ “symmetry” on this list. Steve G. and I used to get into tangles about this. I get that crystals have “symmetry”, but beyond that, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Perhaps you might explicate for those of us who have a hard time not thinking of symmetry as just “being the same on the right as on the left, etc.”

I am further made very nervous with any implication that literature “owns” metaphor whereas scientists are given to plain speech. I think this way of think VASTLY under states the role of metaphor in science. Think Natural Selection, for instance. Also, I have often wondered if a metaphor with magnetism lay behind Newton’s thinking on gravity. Lodestones were of great interest to scientists in Court at the time because of their usefulness in navigation, but also as a curiousity. Lakoff and Nunen (?) describe the central role of metaphors in the development of mathematics. Peirce’s emphasis on “sign” places something very like metaphor at the center of all scientific thought.

Nick

Carl Tollander

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

This may throw something (light?) on the issue.

http://cheng.staff.shef.ac.uk/morality/morality.pdf

The reason I'm tossing this in may not become apparent until a ways into
it, when mathematical "morality" notions are used to address abstraction.

From my own perspective, I swap in musician/composer for mathematician,
but hey, I'm listening to Maria Joao Pires recordings just now.

Carl

On 3/10/15 10:36 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Ok Glen,
>
> Imagine that I am standing before you holding a flat object, such as a
> notebook in my left hand, flat side to you. I hold a small object, let's
> say an artgum eraser, in my right hand above and behind the notebook. I
> release the eraser. Please give me a "plain-spoken" description of what you
> would see.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:31 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels
>
> On 03/09/2015 05:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> I gather that "symmetry" is itself a metaphor, subject both to the joys
> and pains thereof.
>
> I suggest symmetry has a non-metaphorical definition. But I admit the word
> can be successfully _abused_. ;-)
>
>> I never could find a plain spoken way to describe "above and below the
> plane of the molecule" without resort to the very terms I was trying to
> explain, until I thought of restaurant staff stacking six sided tables on
> top of one another to facilitate cleaning. Only then did the three
> dimensionality of traditional "ring diagrams" make any sense to me.
>
> But, see, _my_ problem is that I don't regard the concept "above and below
> the plane of the molecule" to be science. That's ideological hoo-ha
> bouncing around in someone's mind. The science is what's done with the
> hands (and feet, nose, etc.). There is no plain spoken way to describe
> concepts. There are only plain spoken ways to describe _things_ ... real
> things that you can touch and leave a bruise when someone throws it at you.
>
> To me, metaphor doesn't seem fundamental to science because science is about
> what you _do_, not what you think. It's way more scientific to talk about
> stacking tables than it is to talk about "above and below the molecule".
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>

glen ep ropella

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

On 03/10/2015 08:30 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Imagine that I am standing before you holding a flat object, such as a
> notebook in my left hand, flat side to you. I hold a small object in my
> right hand, let's say an art gum eraser, so that appears to you above and
> behind the plain of notebook. I release the eraser. Please give me a
> "plain-spoken" description of what you would see.

I would have responded, had I received your previous post... In any case, here's what I would expect to see: The eraser would move for awhile, disappear, reappear, and again move for awhile before stopping.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: metaphor and talking across skill levels

Thank, Glen,

You are a good sport. I apologize for the rhetorical technique, which is trappy. (I tried in my teaching NEVER to ask anyone a question to which I thought I knew the answer, and, of course, I violated that rule, here.) You are kind to humor me.

You answer perfectly demonstrates the two problems with "plain speaking". (1) It inadequately specifies. Having watched this simple demonstration, you would know more about the path of the eraser than you have said. You would know, for instance, that it went "down" .... i.e., "fell". (2) Nevertheless, scrupulous as you have been, it implies a [micro] metaphor, and it says much more than is known. It asserts the "identity" of the eraser, by analogy with other objects that we have seen move behind another object and reappear. It asserts "object constancy" as a theory. Little did you know that the notebook is equipped with a special net that catches the first eraser and that I released a second eraser as the first fell into the net.

I have worked with my students with this simple demonstration ever since the 70's, and we keep coming back to the same conclusion. That the effort to remove metaphor from description is hopeless and that the information price paid in the attempt to mimimize metaphor is too great. This conclusion is equivalent to saying that description and explanation are the same operation seen from different points of view, and that the distinction between poet and bench scientist must come from some place other than their use of metaphors.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels

On 03/10/2015 08:30 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Imagine that I am standing before you holding a flat object, such as a

> notebook in my left hand, flat side to you. I hold a small object in

> my right hand, let's say an art gum eraser, so that appears to you

> above and behind the plain of notebook. I release the eraser. Please

> give me a "plain-spoken" description of what you would see.

I would have responded, had I received your previous post... In any case, here's what I would expect to see: The eraser would move for awhile, disappear, reappear, and again move for awhile before stopping.

glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com