Skip to main content
Log in

Why are graphs so central in science?

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper raises the question of the prominence and use of statistical graphs in science, and argues that their use in problem solving analysis can best be understood in an ‘interactionist’ frame of analysis, including bio-emotion, culture, social organization, and environment as elements. The frame contrasts both with philosophical realism and with social constructivism, which posit two variables and one way causal flows. We next posit basic differences between visual, verbal, and numerical media of perception and communication. Graphs are thus seen as key interactive sites where different media are transformed into more interpretable forms. Examples are taken from Limnology where numbers are transformed into graphs to find patterns in them, and thus, by implication in the environmental materials from which the numerical measurements were taken. Their revisualization by passes a human cognitive limitation, for the direct analysis — interpretation of lists and tables of numbers, visual imaging being a cognitive strength. Sense of problem, conceptual repertoire, and social relations are seen to direct this pattern search and interpretive process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amann, K., and K. Knorr-Cetina: 1988, ‘The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence’, Representation in Scientific Practice, Special issue ofHuman Studies 11 (2-3), 133–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C.: 1988,Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borell, M.: 1976, ‘The Instrumentation and the Rise of Modern Physiology’,Science and Technology Studies 5 (2), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J.: 1985,The Day the University Changed, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, pp. 134–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, W.: 1984, ‘Graphs in Scientific Publications’,The American Statistician 38 (4), 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, W., and R. McGill: 1983, ‘Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, Application to the Development of Graphical Methods’,Journal of American Statistical Association 79, 531–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, D.: 1975,Marine Ecology and Fisheries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demey, M.: 1982,The Cognitive Paradigm, Reidel, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, P.: 1974, ‘The Phosphorus-Chlorophyll Relationship in Lakes’,Limnology Oceanography 19, 767–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, E.: 1977, ‘The Minds' Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology’,Science 197, 827–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H.: 1982,Mapping Information, Abt Books, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R., R. Pisani, and R. Purves: 1978,Statistics, Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funkhauser, H.: 1937, ‘The Graphical Presentation of Statistical Data’,Osiris III, 269–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R.: 1988,Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1989,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W. W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoaglin, F., F. Moesteller, and J. Tukey: 1983,Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data, Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1981,The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1989, ‘Ron Giere Explaining Science: The Cognitive Approach’, paper presented at the annual meeting of The Society for Social Studies of Science (4), Irvine, Calif. 11, 15–18, 1988.

  • Krohn, R.: 1990, ‘Are All Scientific Visuals the Same?’, 4-5 Meetings, Minneapolis, 10, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B.: 1986, ‘Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands’,Knowledge and Society 6, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B. and S. Woolgar: 1979,Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M.: 1985,Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M.: 1988, ‘The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences’,Human Studies 11, 201–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moesteller, F.: 1977,Data Analysis and Regression Addison-Wesley, Don Mills, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudwick, M.: 1976, ‘The Emergence of Visual Language for Geological Science, 1760–1840’,History of Science 14, 149–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudwick, M.: 1985,The Great Devonian Controversy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, C., and S. Schmid: 1979,Handbook of Graphic Presentation, Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E.: 1984,The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, W.: 1977,Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, R.: 1975,Limnology, Saunders College Publishing 325, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krohn, R. Why are graphs so central in science?. Biol Philos 6, 181–203 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02426837

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02426837

Key words

Navigation