Graduate studies at Western
Science and Education 20 (453):471 (2011)
|Abstract||Genes are often described by biologists using metaphors derived from computa- tional science: they are thought of as carriers of information, as being the equivalent of ‘‘blueprints’’ for the construction of organisms. Likewise, cells are often characterized as ‘‘factories’’ and organisms themselves become analogous to machines. Accordingly, when the human genome project was initially announced, the promise was that we would soon know how a human being is made, just as we know how to make airplanes and buildings. Impor- tantly, modern proponents of Intelligent Design, the latest version of creationism, have exploited biologists’ use of the language of information and blueprints to make their spurious case, based on pseudoscientific concepts such as ‘‘irreducible complexity’’ and on flawed analogies between living cells and mechanical factories. However, the living organ- ism = machine analogy was criticized already by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In line with Hume’s criticism, over the past several years a more nuanced and accurate understanding of what genes are and how they operate has emerged, ironically in part from the work of computational scientists who take biology, and in particular developmental biology, more seriously than some biologists seem to do. In this article we connect Hume’s original criticism of the living organism = machine analogy with the modern ID movement, and illustrate how the use of misleading and outdated metaphors in science can play into the hands of pseudoscientists. Thus, we argue that dropping the blueprint and similar metaphors will improve both the science of biology and its understanding by the general public.|
|Keywords||science education scientific metaphors information|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Bradie (1999). A Clash of Competing Metaphors. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):887-887.
R. C. Paton (1992). Towards a Metaphorical Biology. Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):279-294.
Massimo Pigliucci (2008). Adaptive Landscapes, Phenotypic Space, and the Power of Metaphors. [REVIEW] Quarterly Review of Biology 83 (3):283-287.
Thomas Mormann (2005). Mathematical Metaphors in Natorp’s Neo-Kantian Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In Falk Seeger, Johannes Lenard & Michael H. G. Hoffmann (eds.), Activity and Sign. Grounding Mathematical Education. Springer.
Roger Säljö (2002). My Brain's Running Slow Today Â The Preference for ÂThings Ontologiesâ in Research and Everyday Discourse on Human Thinking. Studies in Philosophy and Education 21 (4/5):389-405.
Celeste M. Condit (2001). Blueprints and Recipes: Gendered Metaphors for Genetic Medicine. Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (1):29-39.
Paul Thagard & Craig Beam (2004). Epistemological Metaphors and the Nature of Philosophy. Metaphilosophy 35 (4):504-516.
M. Blute (2005). If the Genome Isn't a God-Like Ghost in the Machine, Then What is It? Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):401-407.
Lyn D. English (ed.) (1997). Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Doren Recker (2010). How to Confuse Organisms with Mousetraps: Machine Metaphors and Intelligent Design. Zygon 45 (3):647-664.
Diego Fernandez-Duque (2002). Cause and Effect Theories of Attention: The Role of Conceptual Metaphors. Review of General Psychology 6 (2):153-165.
Jason Simus (2011). Metaphors and Metaphysics in Ecology. Worldviews 15 (2):185-202.
Michael Martin (1986). Science Education and Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education 15 (2):99-108.
A. Charles Catania (2000). Metaphors, Models, and Mathematics in the Science of Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):94-95.
Added to index2011-03-21
Total downloads260 ( #899 of 739,354 )
Recent downloads (6 months)97 ( #233 of 739,354 )
How can I increase my downloads?