Nick, no, not et tu. I absolutely agree with your points 1-6. Always have.
Was not sure the "tone" of your response to glen was politic. glen also has a point, and I admitted that I was guilty of the abuse (mixing metaphor with analogy, simile, etc.) and overuse of the word itself. And I agree with Steve that the term is too often used as a "compression of convenience for expression," and that is both harmful and ubiquitous—especially in the public sphere. I also agree with both you and Steve that the proper, even essential and inevitable, use of metaphor is as and "exploratory tool (epistemic scaffold). Strangely enough, I even agree with Marcus, "make your metaphors, just don't believe them." Believing metaphors that should have quickly been exposed and discarded is the source of all the crap like the equating of computers and brains, executing programs as cognition, and machine-software computation as intelligence. davew On Thu, Mar 19, 2026, at 3:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Dave: et tu, brute? > > As for the rest of you heathens, this feels like one of those jolly > conspiracies to misunderstand that is flat-out infuriating when one is the > butt of it. Watching you all raise your crispy lacy crinolines above the > dark muck of metaphor would be hilarious if it weren't misplaced and > vaguely. unkind. > > Here is the argument again, stripped down to its essentials. Note that it is > not an argument in favor of metaphor. I a m no more arueing in favor of > metaphor than I am arguing in favor of the wind. Let not your responses, if > there are any, be of the form, "Damn the wind!" > > 1. Metaphors are everywhere. We can disclaim them all we like, but they are > deeply embedded in the way in which we proceed from thought to thought. They > lurk in how professionals talk to one another and also in the manner in which > professionals talk to the public. > 2. There is a lot of evidence these days that scientists have "lost" the > public. This is a very dangerous situation. My suspicion is that this has to > do with the metaphors we use when we talk to the public about what we do. > 3. We all seem to agree that there is truth and falsehood disguised in every > metaphor. > 4. Given the ambiguity of metaphors, I am interested in a method for > understanding their role in thought and communication, particularly in > understanding the manner in which truth and falsehood is deployed in them. > How are we to distinguish between a better and a worse metaphor if all > contain elements of falsehood. What am I to take from your metaphor? What > are you to take from mine? > 5. Given the entanglement of truth and falsehood in metaphor, it's worth > exploring distinctions between what implications a speaker intends by a > metaphor, what the coherence of the metaphor can logically sustain by way of > implication, and what implications hearers take from the metaphor. > 6. Given that I want to pursue this line of thought, what follows for my > Phellow Phriam members? > 7. You can ignore me. This is the fate of most contributions to Friam. No > foul there. > 8. You can help me get it right. > 9 You can loftily castigate me. > > Not clear to me why, busy people that you are, you would bother with 9. > > Look, I am 88 years old. There is going to be a time soon when you put me on > an iceberg and send me out to be among the seals and the polar bears. > Perhaps it is today. But please, dear god, don't make fools of yourselves > while you are doing that. I have known some of you for more than 20 years. > You are bright, insightful people. You have been enormously helpful in the > past. I don't want my last view of you to be waving your fists and > shouting, red-faced, some of the boneheaded things you have asserted in your > recent emails. And if Icebergs echo, do you really want those same > utterances coming back at you. > > Nick > > > > . > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 7:47 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >> While I am happy to concede what I perceive to be glen's main thrust—the >> term metaphor is generally abused and vastly overused and should be given a >> rest—I see no need for Nick's response; and, I still have a serious question. >> >> If I am confronting something new, something at the "edge of science," and I >> want to communicate with peers or explain to an informed general public that >> which I am confronting; there seems to be a need for a label, a word. >> >> I see four options and am sure that there are others that have not presented >> themselves: >> 1- establish a formal system by which new names are created, e.g., the INN >> system administered by WHO for naming new drug compounds. (Or, taxonomic >> names for flora and fauna) >> 2- name by reference, as Bose-Einstein Condensate, refers to a body of >> work advanced by those two authors >> 3- craft a "nonsense" word, e.g., quark, flavor, charm, and strange >> 4- apply a word that is familiar in one context and apply it to the new >> context, e.g., "string" theory. >> >> The first three options would seem preferable for communication among peers, >> but only the fourth one seems workable for use with an informed public. >> >> What additional constraints or embellishments are advisable/desirable to >> effectively employ the fourth option without falling into the >> metaphor-abuse-misuse trap? I think glen offered at least one >> constraint/embellishment—use appropriate modifiers. >> >> Are there instances where the fourth option would be useful, even among >> peers; at least in exploration stages? If yes, what is needed to prevent the >> error of continuing to use the "metaphor" beyond that initial period? >> (Unless, of course, all accumulated evidence confirms the word as literal.) >> >> davew >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026, at 10:31 AM, glen wrote: >> > Your (3) targets my initial trigger and why I mentioned postmodernism, >> > sophistry, and included these 3 links: >> > Debunking the Fake Historian Taking Over the Internet: Professor >> > Jiang's Predictive History >> > https://youtu.be/tSiS-8Msn1I?si=lBOXHmIFfHtppwac >> > The Age of Hyperreal Fascism >> > https://youtu.be/R9fpm-lorIU?si=eLizlyzgsAq624AR >> > Bret Weinstein | Game Theory >> > https://youtu.be/5NAQMoRzuxk?si=6zcftBKUvmdwJ9p2 >> > >> > When someone attempts to communicate with you, you have the *option* of >> > either 1. meta-splaining or 2. looking _through_ the content, rather >> > than looking _at_ the content. As with your analogy to can openers, I >> > had the option of being a smartass and pointing out the inadequacy of >> > the term "can opener" (1) or engaging with my best guess at what you >> > actually meant. I kindasorta chose to do both in order to get at the >> > point. >> > >> > People who yap constantly about how this or that word or concept is a >> > metaphor (or any number of other peeves like split infinitives, vocal >> > fry, ending a sentence with a preposition, conflating envy with >> > jealousy, etc.) are *choosing* to engage in (1) to the preemptive >> > exclusion of (2). >> > >> > If we go back to the original context of ultracrepidarianism and the >> > usefulness of the naked emperor story, we don't *need* to use the word >> > (or concept) of metaphor to get to the point. And we don't need the >> > allegory/fable at all. Fresh eyes can help a group see things in fresh >> > ways. Like ... duh. Obviously. Even referring to the naked emperor >> > story seems more like a literary "flex" than a competent contribution. >> > More deeply, Nick need not use the word/concept of metaphor in his >> > criticism of the definedness of "atmospheric press". >> > >> > I often get the feeling I'm trapped on the couch with Beavis and >> > Butthead. But instead of "Huh-huh-huh-huh. He said 'anus'", we get >> > "Huh-huh-huh-huh. That's a metaphor." Or maybe it reminds me of working >> > in Silly Valley, where all the tech bros talked about >> > quantumquantumquantum in some bizarre attempt to look smart. IDK. >> > Sometimes ... *most* times a cigar is just a cigar. How irritating is >> > it when your hipster friend overuses "phallic"? Or winks at you >> > whenever a woman uses the word "taco"? OMG, give it a rest. >> > >> > >> > On 3/18/26 6:37 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> >> 1 - I plead guilty to misusing "metaphor." Only, however, to the >> >> extent that I conflate multiple similar terms, e.g., simile and analogy, >> >> under a single umbrella, "metaphor." Also, because, even when used >> >> precisely, a metaphor can be different 'things' at different times—i.e., >> >> it has a lifecycle—including epiphor, diaphor, failed metaphor, lexical >> >> term, and my own neologism, "paraphor." >> >> >> >> 2 - Metaphor is, and should be used as such, just as precise a term as >> >> any other word; including the ones you listed and catachresis. There is a >> >> thread within linguistics study dedicated to metaphor. >> >> >> >> 3 - As for, 'everything a metaphor'. Every noun (likely any word) in a >> >> language might be construed as metaphor, e.g., "dog" */_is_/* "this >> >> complex, amalgamated, integrated, bundle of sensor (e.g., nerve ending) >> >> blips." >> >> >> >> 4 - with regards responsibility: the damage done by unrecognized, >> >> unacknowledged metaphors like, "brain is computer," and, "executing >> >> software is cognition," are extraordinarily harmful but no one is held to >> >> account for asserting them. >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, at 6:17 PM, glen wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >> <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/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> 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/ > > > -- > 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/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
