Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:46:32.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parsing pictures: on analyzing the content of images in science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2013

Letitia Meynell
Letitia Meynell*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3 H 4P9; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I tackle the question of what basic form an analytical method for articulating and ultimately assessing visual representations should take. I start from the assumption that scientific images, being less prone to interpretive complication than artworks, are ideal objects from which to engage this question. I then assess a recent application of Nelson Goodman's aesthetics to the project of parsing scientific images, Laura Perini's ‘The truth in pictures’. I argue that, although her project is an important one, her Goodmanian conventionalism produces a method of analysis that is incapable of adequately parsing a certain class of pictures and her focus on truth is unnecessary. This speaks against the promise of Goodman's analytical strategy for elucidating visual content and reasoning in the sciences and elsewhere. As an alternative, I develop John Willats’ analytical method and compare it to Perini's through engaging three of her examples—a chemical diagram, a graph and an electron micrograph. Ultimately, a space remains open for a mixed system where Willats’ account provides pictorial analysis and the Goodman–Perini approach parses visual languages.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 28 , Special Issue 3: Visualization, Visual Representation and Reasoning , September 2013 , pp. 327 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahams, J. P., Leslie, A. G. W., Lutter, R., Walker, J. E. 1994. Structure at 2.8 resolution of F1-ATPase from bovine heart mitochondria. Nature 370, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrell, D. 1987. What Goodman should have said about representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46(1), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubery, F., Willats, J. 1983. Perspective and Other Drawing Systems. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.Google Scholar
Elgin, C. Z. 1997. Relocating aesthetics: Goodman's epistemic turn. In Nelson Goodman's Philosophy of Art, Elgin, C. (ed.). Garland, 1–17.Google Scholar
Elgin, C. Z. 2004. True enough. Philosophical Issues 14(1), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, J. 1995. Art history and images that are not art. The Art Bulletin 77(4), 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Moran, H. 1962. Cell-membrane ultrastructure: low-temperature electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction studies of lipoprotein components in lamellar systems. Circulation 26, 1039–1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Files, C. 1996. Goodman's rejection of resemblance. British Journal of Aesthetics 36(4), 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, E. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giovannelli, A. 2009. Goodman's aesthetics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Spring edition, Retrieved September 12, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=goodman-aesthetics/.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kaiser, D. 2005. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, M. 2000. Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science. Oxford University.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meynell, L. 2008. Why Feynman diagrams represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M., Morgan, M. (eds) 1999. Models as Mediators. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Neurath, M. 1974. Isotype. Instructional Science 3, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penefsky, H. S. 1977. Reversible binding of P1 by beef heart mitochondrial adenosine triphosphatase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 252(9), 2891–2899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrett, D. I., Hietanen, J. K., Oram, M. W., Benson, P. J., Rolls, E. T. 1992. Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 335(1273), 23–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Perini, L. 2005. The truth in pictures. Philosophy of Science 72, 262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, L. 2013. Diagrams in biology. Knowledge Engineering Review 28(▪), ▪▪–▪▪.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. 1996. Are pictures really necessary? The case of Sewall Wright's ‘adaptive landscapes’. In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science, Brian, B. (ed.). University of Toronto, 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, P. 1996. On the use of visualizations in the practice of science. Philosophy of Science 63(Supplement), S230–S238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. 1956. The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Logic, Semantics, Mathematics. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Willats, J. 1997. Art and Representation: New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures. Princeton University.Google Scholar