Cmon, Glen, where is the Steelman of Yore? To apply the metaphor (metaphor) to every utterance is no more "corrupt" than to mathematize every proposition. It becomes corrupt only when it is not pursued honesty. "Entanglement" is a metaphor. It directs the mind. "Natural selection" is a metaphor. It also directs the mind.
My worry is that scientists, when they use such rich metaphors as entanglement fail to take responsibility for the consequences of such use. Let's assume that the person who first used the metaphor, entanglement, meant something by it. We can formalize the analysis of metaphors just as we can mathematicize any proposition. And in that formalization, we can sort out the direction, and misdirection in the metaphor. What did they intend when they used the metaphor entanglement? What did they NOT intend? And when the disclaimers have been completed, is there anything left of the metaphor. If not, then, perhaps,* scientists should stop using the metaphor*. In the same way that we have stopped calling porpoises "fish". I don't know enough to even speculate what role "entanglement" as a metaphor has played in the development of quantum physics. But I claim to know enough about human behavior to assert that it has played some role, and that physicists run some risks if they altogether disclaim it. What might we gain, SteelMan, from exploring human thought as movement from metaphor to metaphor, each new experience being understood as a version of some previous one? My love is like a red,red rose, delicate, delighting, fragrant. But OH! the thorns. Did I mean the thorns. Was there ever a rose that did not have thorns? Metaphors are like that. When you say that we metaphorists are liars, what are the experiences of being lied to that you bring to bear. When we analyze metaphors (I assert), it's always best to be as particular as possible. Describe to me a particular jarring instance of being lied to. Now project that experience onto the experience of being metaphored to. What are the surplus meanings of applying the metaphor; which of those surplus meanings are disclaimed; once these disclaimers have been noted, does the metaphor retain any heuristic value. I have to say, I don't like being called a liar. But -- as the saying goes -- "if the foo shits", I guess I have to wear it. So, what experience do you imagine when you imagine being lied to? What aspects of that experience do you intend when you call metaphorists liars? What aspect do you disclaim? What is the heuristic value of the metaphor, once the disclaimers have been made. By the way, just as an interpersonal matter, if you call me a sinner, it doesn't help that you immediately call yourself a sinner. Any contempt you feel for yourself, does nothing to salve the contempt you feel for me. In fact it makes it worse. I have to bear the contempt of an admitted *sinner!* But I love you anyway. I wouldn't engage you if I didnt. Nick -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
