|
|
|
| A Study of Metaphor in Scientific Argumentation: Taking Metaphors of Synthetic Biology as an Example |
| Huang Huaxin, Zhu Wensheng |
| School of Philosophy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Taking examples of metaphor argumentation in synthetic biology and following pragmatic argumentation theory, this study analyzes the use of metaphor in scientific argumentation. Based on an analytical reconstruction and critical evaluation of metaphorical arguments, some suggestions are proposed for how to use metaphors reasonably in scientific argumentation.In the second half of the 20th Century, with the development of metaphor research, more and more researchers began to explore metaphors in science. While acknowledging the epistemological and methodological significance of using metaphors in science, some scholars have also pointed out the possible negative impact of using metaphors in scientific research. However, these studies usually examine the meaning and impact of a single metaphorical phrase at a macro level, giving scant attention to the use of metaphors in specific scenes at a micro level, and until now there are no clarified criteria for the rationality of metaphor use in science. In fact, metaphors are often embedded in specific scientific contexts, giving rise to a complicated process of comprehension, reasoning, and transfer of ideas and emotions. In this process, the use of metaphors can have a positive or negative impact on the context. Therefore, it is meaningful to scrutinize the use of metaphors in a specific scientific scene at a micro level. As an essential part of scientific research, the use of metaphors in scientific argumentation deserves special attention.This study has sorted out the influential metaphorical expressions in synthetic biology, and selected three metaphorical arguments used in this field according to the definition of metaphorical argumentation. By removing the redundant information, adding the potential information, replacing the ambiguous expressions with the clearer ones, and reordering the statements in metaphorical arguments, we have found that using metaphors can be a necessary move in argumentation. In scientific argumentation, metaphors can be used as a material premise to provide a data basis for argumentation, as a connection premise to perform the reasoning from premise to conclusion, and also as a standpoint to show the arguer’s thinking process. However, when metaphors are used as a particular element of arguments, it is necessary to put forward certain corresponding evaluation criteria for metaphors in order to ensure the reliability of scientific argumentation. In this study we have found that when a metaphor is used as a material premise, the metaphor should be a conventional one in scientific research and should have factual authenticity in the context of argumentation, otherwise the use of metaphor is unreasonable. When a metaphor is used as a connection premise, it will produce a symptomatic relation. And the higher the similarity of factual conditions of metaphor to the attributes conveyed by its symptomatic relation is, the higher the probability of successful argument will be. And when metaphor is used as a standpoint, it is necessary to ensure that there is no challenge to the metaphor in the context of argumentation, otherwise the standpoint is unreliable.Therefore, metaphors should be used reasonably in scientific argumentation. Only when appropriately used in scientific arguments can metaphors be accepted and recognized by the scientific community and play an active role in scientific research. On the other hand, any unreasonable use of metaphors can lead to unreliable scientific argumentation, hindering the progress of scientific research.
|
|
Received: 21 April 2022
|
|
|
|
1 Lakoff G. & Johnson M.， Metaphors We Live By， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1980.
2 安军、郭贵春： 《科学隐喻的本质》，《科学技术与辩证法》2005年第3期，第42-47页。
3 刘大椿： 《隐喻何以成为科学的工具》，《西北师大学报（社会科学版）》2009年第4期，第1-5页。
4 马诗雯、王国豫： 《合成生物学隐喻的双重维度》，《中国科学院院刊》2020年第6期，第751-762页。
5 Loettgers A.， “Metaphors advance scientific research，” Nature， Vol. 502， No. 7471 （2013）， p. 303.
6 Ball P.， “A metaphor too far，” Nature， https：//doi.org/10.1038/news.2011.115， 2022-04-05.
7 Frezza G.， “Metaphor： the good argument in science communication，” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio， Vol. 10， No. 2 （2016）， pp. 21-33.
8 Holyoak K. J. & Stamenkovi? D.， “Metaphor comprehension： a critical review of theories and evidence，” Psychological Bulletin， Vol. 144， No. 6 （2018）， pp. 641-671.
9 Tippett C.， “Argumentation： the language of science，” Journal of Elementary Science Education， Vol. 21， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 17-25.
10 Kitney R.， Calvert J. & Challis R. et al.， Synthetic Biology： Scope， Applications and Implications， London： The Royal Academy of Engineering， 2009.
11 Peretó J. & Català J.， “The renaissance of synthetic biology，” Biological Theory， Vol. 2， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 128-130.
12 李春： 《合成生物学》，北京：化学工业出版社，2019年。
13 Hellsten I. & Nerlich B.， “Synthetic biology： building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick，” New Genetics and Society， Vol. 30， No. 4 （2011）， pp. 375-397.
14 Boldt J.， “Machine metaphors and ethics in synthetic biology，” Life Sciences， Society and Policy， Vol. 14， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 1-13.
15 O’Keefe M.， Perrault S. & Halpern J. et al.， “‘Editing’ genes： a case study about how language matters in bioethics，” The American Journal of Bioethics， Vol. 15， No. 12 （2015）， pp. 3-10.
16 Boudry M. & Pigliucci M.， “Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences，” Elsevier， Vol. 44， No. 4 （2013）， pp. 660-668.
17 Blakemore C.， “And man recreated life. But now the problems begin，” 2008-01-27， https：//www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/27/comment.controversiesinscience， 2022-04-05.
18 Venter J. C.， “What is life？ a 21st century perspective，” 2012-07-12， https：//www.edge.org/conversation/what-is-life， 2022-04-05.
19 Parry V.， “Can we create life？” 2008-04-27， https：//www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/27/infectiousdiseases.stemcells， 2022-04-05.
20 Endy D.， “Foundations for engineering biology，” Nature， Vol. 438， No. 7067 （2005）， pp. 449-453.
21 荷］范爱默伦、赫尔森、克罗贝等： 《论证理论手册》，熊明辉等译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2020年。
22 Yu S. & Zenker F.， “Schemes， critical questions， and complete argument evaluation，” Argumentation， Vol. 34， No. 4 （2020）， pp. 469-498.
23 Grootendorst R. & van Eemeren F. H.， A Systematic Theory of Argumentation： The Pragma-dialectical Approach， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2004.
24 van Poppel L.， “The study of metaphor in argumentation theory，” Argumentation， Vol. 35， No. 1 （2021）， pp. 177-208.
25 Oswald S. & Rihs A.， “Metaphor as argument： rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors，” Argumentation， Vol. 28， No. 2 （2014）， pp. 133-159.
26 Wagemans J. H. M.， “Analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse，” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio， Vol. 10， No. 2 （2016）， pp. 79-94.
27 Xu C. & Wu Y.， “Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 62 （2014）， pp. 68-76.
28 Santibá?ez C.， “Metaphors and argumentation： the case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation，” Journal of Pragmatics， Vol. 42， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 973-989.
29 Reboul O.， “The figure and the argument，” in Meyer M. （ed.）， From Metaphysics to Rhetoric， Berlin： Springer， 1989， pp. 169-181.
30 Pielenz M.， Argumentation und Metapher， Tübingen： Gunter Narr Verlag， 1993.
31 Garssen B. & Kienpointner M.， “Figurative analogy in political argumentation，” in Feteris E. T.， Garssen B. & Henkemans F. S. et al. （eds.）， Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics： In Honor of Frans H. van Eemeren， Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 2011， pp. 39-59.
32 Finsen A. B.， Steen G. J. & Wagemans J. H.， “An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain，” Journal of Argumentation in Context， Vol. 8， No. 3 （2019）， pp. 317-335.
33 黄华新： 《认知科学视域中隐喻的表达与理解》，《中国社会科学》2020年第5期，第48-64页。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
