Thinking, communicating and translating metaphors in controversial science

Metaphors in scientific language have been studied extensively by linguists and rhetoricians as windows into how scientific knowledge is built and sometimes laden with subjective values that scientists may or may not be aware of (Cecarelli 2020). For example, Sidler (2006) discusses the use of metaphors in Schröedinger’s work which sparked the field of molecular biology and tended to favor a deterministic view of genetics where interactions with the environment were ignored. It influenced the paths researchers took in the field and the perception of their work by the general public. In the field of quantum physics, metaphors have also been studied for the potentially biased view they give of the field, whether through an enigmatic framing that keeps the lay public at a distance (Meinsma et. al. 2023) or through “metaphorical distortions” that give a false view of essential quantum phenomena like entanglement or decoherence (Burwell 2018). The central use of metaphors in these two fields may be explained by several characteristics. Firstly, the scale of enquiry. As indicated in its name, molecular biology works on life processes at the molecular level. Quantum physics deals with matter at the atomic scale. At this very small scale of enquiry, observations are rarely made with the naked eye. Metaphor can thus serve the purpose of making the processes described more easily grasped to “conceptualize that which cannot be seen or touched” (Sidler 2006 : 61). The second reason why metaphors play an essential role in these two fields is that they deal with controversial topics. Molecular biology deals with the structures of life, sometimes described as the origin of life itself. Like any discourse on origins, because of different belief systems concerning the meaning of human destinies in their environment, adopting a neutral stance on such a subject is challenging and value-laden metaphors seem difficult to avoid. Quantum physics also opens unresolved questions about the role of humans in the world, the difference between ontology and epistemology and the nature of reality itself (Burwell 2018) which metaphors of the field contribute to framing in a certain light. Climate change shares with these fields visualization processes that are challenging although for very different reasons. Phenomena studied in the field of climate change happen at a very large scale in space (the whole planet and its atmosphere) and time. Indeed, they imply projections in the future through models that integrate a certain degree of uncertainty. It has also led to controversy and disagreement because of cultural representations of the climate that may differ according to belief systems (Hulme 2022). Linguists have also studied the metaphors used in the field to consider framing scientists propose (Fries 2019) and how it influences perceptions beyond the specialized community (Deignan and Semino 2022).

Through this conference our aim is to pursue the reflection on metaphors in science to see how they may contribute to presenting unresolved questions with a specific framing, sometimes without this being openly acknowledged by those who use them. Like Temmerman, we consider the essential distinction between “creative metaphor” that contributes to scientific knowledge through “analogical reasoning” and “metaphorical naming” and “didactic metaphor” where the use of metaphor corresponds to an explanatory purpose (2000: 205). Terminological metaphors are generally “creative metaphors” but didactic metaphors may also influence the terminology of a field. Through studying where the metaphors appear and what seems to be their main communicative purpose, we may consider a distinction between metaphors that help understand scientific concepts and metaphors that help explain scientific concepts. Metaphors used in literature or fiction about science also seem of specific interest in this context as fiction can have an explanatory function and play an essential role in the popularization of scientific knowledge.

Bibliography