Were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use such rich catachreses as 
'entanglement', fail to take responsibility for consequences of such use", I would not object. 
That word, unlike metaphor, has a fairly concrete meaning, something like "fills lexical gaps 
in scientific terminology, providing names and concepts where none previously existed".

Or, were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use such rich 
didactic metaphors as 'entanglement', fail to take responsibility for consequences of 
such use", that would be OK too. The 'didactic' qualifier helps the reader 
*understand* whatever the hell you might mean.

I don't actually care that much what the first person who used a word meant by 
that word. Etymology and usage history are interesting and can sometimes hint 
at the word's normative meaning. But what matters much much more is what the 
current author(s) mean when they use the word.

And, again, if everything's a metaphor, then the word 'metaphor' is useless... like saying 
everything is a thing. It feels like the Bad kind of "sophistry" to use a phrase like 
"the metaphor (metaphor)". It not only wastes everyone's time; it also gives me The Ick: 
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20ick It's difficult to steel man something 
when that thing grosses you out.


On 3/17/26 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
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


--
¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/

Reply via email to