Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T22:54:39.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metaphorical Models and Scientific Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

M. Elaine Botha
M. Elaine Botha*
Affiliation:
Potchefstroom University for CHE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The primary significance of the adoption of Black’s (1962) interaction view of metaphor by Hesse in her network model of theories (1966, 1972 and 1974) and in her network model of meanings (1984a) is the fact that it leads to a fundamental modification of the hypothetical-deductive account of scientific theorizing and a relativization of the traditional logical positivist distinction between observation language and theory language. Hesse argues that what holds for metaphorical language in ordinary language use, namely that it is affected by the contextual interaction between the various elements present in the metaphor, is also true of scientific models. They function in a similar fashion (1972, p. 254). She does not reject the distinction between literal and metaphorical language, but claims that the distinction is a pragmatic one. The distinction concerns the way in which speakers learn, use, and if necessary, define the words of their language.

Type
Part VI. General Philosophy of Science (B)
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 373 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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.)

Footnotes

1

The initial draft of this paper was developed during a sabbatical at Notre Dame University, made possible by a Senior Researcher Grant of the Human Sciences Research Council of the Republic of South Africa. I would like to thank Ernan McMullin for helpful discussions and assistance during this time. For comments related to preliminary versions of this paper I would like to thank Johann Mouton, Alexis Retief, Dian Joube and Wentzel van Huysteen.

References

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshu. (ed.). (1972). Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 10.64 International Congress for Logic. Methodology, and Philosophy of Soienoef Jerusalem. (Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics.) Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Black, Max. (1962). Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Max. (1980). “More about Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 19–43.Google Scholar
Collins, Lyndhurst (ed.). (1976). The Use of Models in the Social Sciences. London Tavistock.Google Scholar
Harre, Rom. (1976). “The Constructive Role of Models.” In Collins (1976). Pages 16–43.Google Scholar
Hart, H. (1984). Understanding Our World. An Integral Ontology. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1972). “The Explanatory Function of Metaphor.” In Bar-Hillel (1972). Pages 249–259.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1974). The Structure of Inference. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1976). “Models versus Paradigms in the Natural Sciences.” In Collins (1976). Pages 1–15.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1984a). “The Cognitive Claims of Metaphor.” In Van Noppen (1984). Pages 27–45.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B (1984b). “Texts Without Types and Lumps Without Laws.” Unpublished article. Response to a paper by R. Rorty. “Texts and Lumps.“Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark (ed.). (1981). Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980a). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980b). “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language.” The Journal of Philosophy 77: 453–486. (As reprinted in Johnson (1981). Pages 286-325.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. (1982). “The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System.” In Norman (1982). Pages 193–226.Google Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett (ed.). (1984). Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. (1978). “Structural Explanation.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 139–147.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. (1984). “The Case for Scientific Realism.” In Leplin (1984). Pages 8–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Donald A (ed.). (1982). Perspectives on Cognitive Science. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew, (ed.). (1980). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snell, Bruno. (1953). The Discovery of the Hind: The Greek Origins of European Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spragens, Th A. (1973). The Dilema of Contemporary Political Theory: Toward a Post-Behavioral Science of Politics. New York: Dunellen.Google Scholar
Tiger, L. and Fox, R. (1971). The Imperial Animal. London: Seeker and Warburg.Google Scholar
Turbayne, C.M. (1970). The Myth of Metaphor. Rev. ed. Columbia,. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Van Noppen, J.P. (ed.). (1984). Metaphor and Religion—Theolinguistics. Brussels.Google Scholar
A.D., Woozley (1976). Theory of Knowledge. London Hutchinson.Google Scholar