dystopia of truth and tale in sciences: Syndrome of Narrative 1

04/10/09

Every piece i start to write,  soon-to-matter how and why, has a conquering beat in my head: It exists with a tagged hope that it reaches out. And every piece i start to write has a funky kinetic of self-love which cycles back to itself in reference: It says what it wanna be.  Because I know and, after a while,  it knows that we cannot exist without the minimal amount of meaning we transcend through the screen. Both the author’s connective urge and the text’s paradigm of fatherly sense and immenseness  and byzentinean authority over a reader are almost a non-skipped principle: Align the experience and say it’s happy, unfair, logical, random. Even the chaos is tamed into what’s not 1 2 3 4 5. And the bliss that comes is uncanny: we ever so happily are,  itself and the makers of, a story.

It shouldn’t be a shattering surprise in itself. Even thinking about writing this feels essentially tautological. Meaning is ubiquitous and it’s what ties what we tell is an account. Recite any account you give about anything. What i am trying not to fool myself into not further going on about this obvious chimera of literal and existential man is a simple case of a tandem daily: You talk about your day in the city, the non-cathartic selection of sequence should follow the places, the people and how they interacted with a special emphasis on the unexpected and out-of-ordinary. Because the meaning dictates the selection and how the world is sense and what we sense is world as a duo is selected through this dictation.  So, a delightful repetition arises. We see we hear we render we sequence we bind in meaning. Then it’s a day. We, in very fine slices, subjectivize.

The experience of subjective is a loss/gain double dynamic in which you build the sense out of lack of absurdity and gain of meaning and defeat the purpose, for the sake of being subjective and tearing away from the approaching cementation of the subject into object, in which you embrace the absurd in search of a new rise of meaning. However, the dictation is as said by meaning, and by meaning only.

08/23/09

This is a point of numerous self-referential grabs, one which is obvious in its gathering. It’s a way. And  we must recognize that we have rumbled and rocked in a way. Self-expression, pity, empathy and other pseudo-rational sensitivities are all a way. And we have traveled that way. And wherever we reached and however we did, was like an inclined stroke of a razor over skin, yet we have reached. It was a way.

The way of meaning has rarely made sense because of what time does to us, items of chaos returning and slaying the memory, but that human in human paves the frantic underway of the way and never leaves meaning amiss. Well, one quite interesting resonance of this perseverance is in sciences. The introvert philosopher doing introspection has lasted us (and me) a quite while; the piece so far evidently is a demo of such an effort. Then we did this thing where some body went out and asked: “What happens if [x]?”. Something did happen. Repeat it and again. Then, arguably, in the first time of intellectual encounters on earth, we took a step back to recuperate our meaning. I like this particular anthropomorphic analogy which talks about that time during the refinery of your everyday consciousness; you are waiting for a bus in a freezing weather and you are in shorts because you are heading to the gym but you didn’t think it would be this cold and were too lazy to put on heavy clothing but now you are seriously contemplating of running back to your room to change but the bus might come any minute but the bus is never reliable around here, it is sometimes half an hour late,   i might have already missed it, should i just walk, no i cant, oh wait is that a bus, no just an suv. … Suddenly you hear yourself talk and are only concerned with yourself talking. You see that you see, you walk like you are walked. It’s a state of no clear empirical demeanor; an internal grade of sense and introvert assumptions, a meta-self.  Everyone has been through a sort or another, so i am not too worried about the message being felt, maybe not understood. The realization of a massive body of another perspective through rational empiricism brought this exact sentiment into an era and almost perfectly transformed into a phenomenological upbringing of the 17th century and on, in an almost exactly personal way of Hegelian evolution of consciousness upgrade.

How did we come around? I don’t have the slightest idea. One would think he would keep forgetting and starting over. But something gave in. And there started a sequence, that bears no exaggeration or resemblance to anything. The fabric of science has been woven everywhere now, not of any exaggeration or resemblance in history.

It’s not my faintest goal to describe science. The example above, by the picture, is a relentless trial, not to describe but relieve it of its relation to object and sample a service for meaning, which claims essence soon. I, rather, will consider this: Science as an entrepreneurship is not too spaced or wildly manufactured of an idea, we all know what companies, be it pharmacological or biomedical, seminal salaries, motivational speeches entail. Science described in such a way is credible and real. Science as a wayward curve of exponentiation, however, is incredible. The human fallacy that the times of present is full of future and of past haunts the grounds, we still forget, but, but it’s still a wild ride. The former fallacy is a normative one, still in synthesis: The dimension of human understanding and logic is, however infinite, provincial. This conflicting paradigms linearize the way we interact with the world beneath. The perception evolves under the condition of present, always reminiscent and foretelling. Science born to a medium of this drama is surely capable of things of comedy of a chasm, rendering resent of a foreign object as peaceful inquiry, but skinned of a something the whole enterprise is founded for, a satire nonetheless of the patriots of intellect: Objectivity. Here still be dragons.

What i call syndrome of narrative (SON) is beyond object vs subject dilemma. It submerges it. SON is an ache when the meaning rooted in the human condition of self-imagery in survival and meaning in self-imagery tries to embrace its existential contra-matter.

SON is a true syndrome of a thriving persona in science. Put everything in meanigful order and make sense is one thing but to put everything in meaning and its tragedy of objective fatality is SON. Hypothesizing is one thing, make believe assumptions about bits and pieces about the experiments that are put together as the proof is another. But all that things that race in front of your eyes, all your cult presence in the white coat, all the setting, all the passionate aims of a frigid test tube, all that lies and all that is for us is SON. SON is being in a loop of relation with your textbook. SON is being half in touch, half in the gloves.  Narration is the ethos, science is the logos. SON is the pathos. Narration is life, science is life-like. SON is the nausea.

Metascientific Pseudomysticism: An account for pathologically death-consumed

It has recently come to my attention that some people have extents of dread towards death: A penetrance of expressivity of depression, hidden or clinically crazy, towards a problem remained unsolved for millennia. We still die and the time arrows the being towards only being and not not-being so the not-being is a surprise that pops up at certain existentialist slip-ups throughout the phenomena of life.

Now, what is there to talk about this that is always and not particularly familiar to the living? What do we seek in abyss? Although the title implies a psychiatric effort of resolution for those who are more dead living than dead dead, i have no such intention. That would be, hopefully intuitive enough for most of us, stupid to do over a blog page and by claiming the title blogger. Rather, what I have assigned myself today to remain consistent on dealing with the post-mortem of self. Most of death –crippled are so because the death is, so delightfully tricky be as it may, the full nothingness achieved after a life of everything-ness underachieved.

This fear of non-existence has a very solid philosophical counterpart which is not the point of this at all, but we are sailing too close so we might as well turn and look. Epicurus tells the Western progeny of his: “When I am, death is not, when I am not, death is”. Leave the irrelevant out, whether we exist, whether the self stays or goes, whether there is a self… The complete eradication of the conscious being , unfortunately so it shows, can NOT exist in a being which assumes everything stemming from the existence of beings and the self-being. Only way to show death as an absolute nothingness is to NEGATE it to what we HAVE right now. You have you, the loud group of girls, the annoying snow, a lab full of mice, the shadows, nausea etc. As a matter of fact, it’s immensely interesting to sit and watch mind make a negation to come to a conclusion of an absolute, as it does with the death of a self. Therefore, we are bound to see two problems right away with this approach, one of Epicurus’: When you are not, there is not anybody nostalgic about the life you would have rather had as a god on Olympus. And one of ours that just showed up: Negation flirts too closely with the creation of absolute abstractions, so what you put forth as death being the not-being can just might be a round square.

We are here today, however, in spite to all that insplode above for the lovers of incapacitation in life, to say that there can be something. Another claim one gets is that there is absolutely no way that there can be anything. Ergo the death bed in your 25s but we have the viagra.

First, couple of things: To anybody attracted to the idea because of what seems to be a pop religion twist, you can now leave. This post will, at my level of understanding it, try to evolve within and with the scientific method. The divergences will happen at points of expansion of the method as deemed by me (me because i am taking responsibility for most definite insolence in the horizon) and this will be the point of it. There is only one working assumption i am making in an effort to minimize the heresy: That the method is enlarging and that although the current one rightfully desecrates its future as invalid to its own functioning, the method has changed. High throughput is replacing the hypothesis-making, as Venter Inc. and LHC efforts have showed. Data have changed (no argument here) therefore it’s only fit for the method to adopt the changing data and evolve with it.

What is metascientific pseudomysticism? Thinking of the idea and what it does, in the conceptual framework, it accommodates science of science, science, self-image and speculation respectively and loops, selection, nature, perception and consciousness no so respectively. It’s a self-coined term so be wary. This will the grand idea i will never be able to say to its fullest.

Dissecting the world into logs and pieces of data into sensible networks and narratives of meaning, the science has come forth with a byproduct of layering of reality. On the human side of things that mattered to assert a reality on, there has been Politics/Economics, Sociology and Psychology and approaching to the crux of natural reality we have had Biology, Chemistry, Physics/Astronomy. On each level, the field reinvents the network of what is real in function and structure over and over. However, it’s not possible, or rather not fruitful, to direct momentum within a single field since what the recent intercalation of fields have shown us is that they stem from each other and the moment the connection is lost, its revival is another discovery, a new way. Biology and Chemistry have worked close enough for decades, but when people started putting together soft and hard sciences together (i would very much like to talk about art/humanities+science but i am not letting that happen here, nobody has that much time for a blog post), it generated a new found generation of scientists who were savoring these epistemological virgins of  fields (see SEED Magazine, virtually every issue so far). However, the important point here is to see the independent worlds science creates that are axiomatic and self-dependent  in their respective fields, which also are eternally self-images of each other on different mornings. Each one works like clockwork within itself but its moving parts is a another clock in itself. Moving on..

Physics is drilling through deepest in the quest of fabric of reality. Reductionism so far has brought us up to superstring theory. We have now strings that gets plucked to create cosmos. Very nice but what exactly is the effort? It’s a highly mathematical model of foundation of nature. It’s equations of reality out of a mathematical pit of endless possibilities. It’s yet there and it’s a founded theory. It’s science.

I am tagging science to the checkpoint to the argument so it’s visible from a distance. Now, the assertion is as follows: The human expression of objectivity under facts as far as the human senses can just reach out for (very important point), since Copernicus, has traveled us through these realms which have made sense under a higher ‘consciousness’ of reality: A chemical system of elements is fundamentally atoms and a nuclear pore complex is fundamentally a chemical system of elements. What’s more fascinating is, repeating myself for the argument’s sake, that every step of broader or narrower understanding can stand alone by itself, thus coined a consciousness. Careful, that doesn’t imply a humanly consciousness, it’s solely a holistic matrix the system is relying upon. Atoms interact, true but on a seriously ridiculous level, they bear the identity of a ion transporter. Function. The layer is defined by its function.

We have mentioned the limited capacity of human sense data. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t need to count to say there are 67 candies in a jar like one would have no need for in order to say there are 4. So the data we receive depend on two main as limited efforts. Put them together for the bigger data and just do not be able to see. The former is already in progress and in fascinating momentum. Well, what you can’t see you cannot see. What you can think of, you just can’t. This gloom of a skeptic leap is instrumental in drawing out this Aristotelian satire: You are seeing this progressive piling up of conscious systems which have a functional integrity; they are for an end. Careful, here the end is no way directional, it’s more causal. We observe the pattern. Therefore, 1. The entirety of what has escaped the evolved sensation capacities might as well be structured as such. As biology hops on psychology and as physics fathers chemistry. You looked, you saw, it was a pattern of reality in vivo, you now assert: It’s not nothingness after life, it is not just the end of all we have brought upon ourselves in life in science. Science doesn’t negate itself after its end: it’s the fabric i am ultimately a part of: The repeating series of conscious expansion in both ways under a causal principle of elementary ‘being’, function.

We have also tried to be smartasses about how things are connected. Borges says so but careful, not talking about literature, we established that. This is basally right and is the heart of reductionist argument. Start with atoms, there is no way to lose them on the way, there are there when your heart beats, they are there when you go bankrupt. So, relating the strings to neurons and then to decision-making, you linearize a relationship that goes through you senses connecting all the dots. So your living status suddenly connects to the fabric. You might lose the function of your layer of existence, for us, biological, after a while but that does in no way suggest complete perishing. it rather suggests a diffusion through the layers. Therefore, 2. Death is not a blunt overgeneralizing of life vs. the other one. Death is a diffusion to a different realm of function.

Now, this uttering, i would not dare say it anywhere but here because with its current standing, it’s not scientific. The standards of science are contemporary and get rewritten as you go. This is an attempt under the working direction of speculation that science may come to recognize something to this sense and dance. Superstition, conclusion-to-fact direction, evidence-lacking assertions are all out of the scope of any branching this article has supposed and advised. Be advised.

This is metascientific pseudomysticism. I made it up.

F.B.

Normalization of the margins: A Vacuum of Delirium

The intentions are always shadowy. Delirium of the masses is not . The Normal. Seja marginal. Seja heroi.

The post will embrace a style. We will evolve within the box and the letters into a creative havoc. The post will be as deluded as the world which it deludes in creation. The fact of the matter will succumb to the bad intent. Pulverize the archetype and summon the father of the reality that is not. That’s what happens. I tell you this now not because of the factual integrity or the artistic superiority we seek at times but because this is important. The subject-matter is delicate and should be attended prior to any engagement into anything hysteric. And once again, in the haphazard way of societal construction ‘the others’ have taken upon themselves, we shall obey the masses of and with which we are not.

Now, I am from Cyprus. I am a subject of Cyprus so is all of this. This is going to be true of everything we do or say at this point on.

Cyprus has no significance. It’s as land and sea as any other part of the world that is land and sea. It has soaked in blood as much as the other lands have. It has been humanized in politics and butchered by leaders for years now. People are people in Cyprus. As much as the people are people in any other place. In the heart of ego and the self-pity of the island lies the entrapment and romanticist of a Cypriot we all have been. Cyprus people fail, in the way of hailing gods and the parting sense, to establish an identity.

Too much credit as it might have ranked up to, Identity ID is familiar as Consciousness C is. The language that summons the credibility of what identity is is self-indulging and is in a petty park of what has been known right off the bat. Bypassing the inviting rite of passage into the depths of the questions of ID in its ontological never-know-never-how tag and giving that ID flourishes as it gets talked into awesome holiness of human paternity of human god that is human itself, we deliberately focus and synchronously say that ID gets built into and out of C. Now it gets interesting. It’s almost like a cynical plot defying the very best we did doing what we do best. Being born into an evolutionary quip of a humanness that is us, C settles as a liquid axiom of surreal existence of philosophical agreeableness of reality in an elusive and trans-figurative essence.  C’s omnipresence is nothing to be talked about. It might all be an ape joke we have come to tell each other to justify the absurd aberrations of actualized organic postulates of logic we all are out of the the mother nothing or everything possible. What’s left of the outraged foundations to defer is ID, which comes about in a timely manner as a knock on the door at 4am. ID concerts with C. ID becomes the communal alter-ego of C. ID hovers over the crowds, alarming. Alarming the coming of another C, savoring.

Savoring the limits. And now it gets fun. ID is ALL about limits. ID is crippling in its paramount state. It defines and determines. It chooses and eliminates. It resembles and hierarchizes. It does what we do. This is what i have been trying to tame into bullshit, but since we’ve come down to this, it might as well be renegades all the way: It does us. Innuendo.

This lovemaking is a whole alot more than an analogy, which is a weakly trait to digress from the confession when we witness every possible relation mind has come to know is real and no more surreal than what is real. While ID does us, we do ID. WE COME OUT OF ID WHICH COMES OUT OF US. Feel the blindfolded ecstasy, see the finite infant?  This nauseating whirlwind bastardizes the possibilities that we might all can be. What we have is what you have is what we have. See the walls closing in, hear the sirens fading? Touch the borderline of our limits?

Now it gets sad. ID is a social entity (really ? really.). It conceives the human paralogs and sets them into interaction. From then on, the possibility of human action falls merciless and grotesque. It gets torn apart, disfigured, unimagined, repeated, repeated, falsifyingly validated. In the heart of self lies the entrapment of ID in bits of rotting cliches and succumbed anomalies of the routine. Everyone gets normalized, vacuumed into the sick margins of the yore. The freedom is compromised but nobody talks about it. Everybody talks about the freedom then it gets trivialized. The outliers get erased with a speed, with a counter-selection unheard of. The Mass Constructum gets supreme. And this is how the absolute C deconstructs itself into the affair of certainty in the lair of human power of irrationale, aimlessness and entropy.

And ID crisis is a wondrous little island called Cyprus. History gets convoluted and treacherous and Cyprus is nothing but of it. Go read, i am not going to write about it. ID crisis has an important semantical weight to it stemming from the body of history, that’s why the mention of it. ID crisis is neither a subtraction or and an addition to a healthy dosage of daily ID values. ID crisis is neither the atrophy or the cancer of ID. ID crisis is a breakdown in the utter dynamics of the whirlwind. It’s a ill-tempered failure in two immense hoofs ID stands on: The normalization dynamics and the feel of belonging. Cyprus suffers because it creates this vacuum for epidermal delirium into which it sucks an set of most random, senseless, pathetic, shallow premises C is innocuously present with no matter where we were born. The taboos, sects of socials beliefs, the enmities of categories of sorts, the proximity of the nihilistic death and the delusion of safety all shape up to be this conglomerate of modern Cypriot folklore. Second, ID is, in essence, a definition of the self (really ?? yes). The dysfunction of a stinking but normal ID dynamic blurs what we see in ourselves as a space-holder in a world of spaces. Self gets undone in the darkness of what to belong to.  Nationality, Love of Nation vs. Love of Land, Love of Land? , Love, I, Them, I without Them?, Out, In, Am I out or in? It turns into a relentless battle of questions and a servitude to a blurry rationality asked,examined and applied by the most unwilling people to do so.

A mess. However, as an unspoken rule of unnatural science and as the essential teaching of the fourth most prominent religion in the world, Fight Club, out of destruction shoots out something that is pure (decadent?). By the disinclined samples of the island, maybe Cyprus achieves something masses rarely even contemplate. A philosophical argument: They dissect and refuse to bow down to a ID manifesting itself by a known system of practicality, and choose (well, they certainly do not choose, but you see) to put up without a worldly sense of belonging and a vacuum of delirium which is very very sucky. I am in no possible way sympathetic to what the island have incurred with, but it’s a philosophical stance nontheless and all the mess Cyprus has instinctively or in whatever way self-inflicted surfaces to ID. ID carves C. C founds us. We embrace ID. Cyprus breaks ID. ID traps C. C forgets us. We forget ID. There you have it.

And now it gets done.

F.B.

The others: Passive wholes in interaction.

My intentions are far away from bringing up the objection vs. subjection debate. However, let me nudge it a little so that i have an idea what i am talking about without trapping myself in any dreadlocks further in the post: In the western philosophical tradition, there has always been a pressing urge for most (all of whom I know of) of the thinker and tinkerers to, maybe with a blind sensibility brought upon by the time and trend, place themselves upon a side of a scale of ontological presumption which has never seen a conciliating midpoint to this date. The fabric of the human reality, in idea and action, is either only in relation to the other relations or absolutely absolute in its most absolute. Morality and Aesthetics have been under such influences. Even Epistemology, the extent to which we can know of things and of that extent, has been caught by the substance. So it’s easy. The natural inclination, stemming from who knows what, who knows whether from subjective or absolute terms, of the human to go and say, ‘Oh no, God?, no I dont do that anymore, but i know there is a force up there above my head’, is self-explanatory of our persistent bonds to something all-underlying, all-founding, all-embracing and all-timate (yes, i did). So we all know how absolute these things can be, although truth of the matter barely contributes to our composition of reality in certain instances. We know how beauty can be one and only because, (Warning:drifting off, mark as the point of rupture) you know why, it just might be that this apparent trust in absolute comes from a moment of psychological flickering of reason, like so; When we ask the question, ‘is this thing beautiful’, we are obliged to part the beautiful from all the other contradictions which are not beautiful and treat the object of beauty only within its properties of beauty. This makes the object of interaction absolute and the questioner the confused one who is only in its question asking and finding an absolute peeled off of its contradictions i.e. relations. However, the split-second judgements of cross-roads like these, also nurtured by the world of morality dictations,  fair tales etc. filled with ‘absolute’ imagery of good, bad, evil, beauty, beast, midget we have all been told of while we were all malleable and ductile kids (These tales of absolute also pointing to a failure of the human consciousness to choose to relativistic pathway in Hegelian history [i am sorry to interrupt but i just want to thank you if you made it till this point. Been great being read by you so far. I know this is getting to be a gruesome sentence as i go like this but i know you are capable.]) come to a very simple expression of human tendency: We like it absolute. We want to stick with it because it’s comforting and familiar. Hence this ultimately leads to a question of grave importance and vital urgency: What was my point because i forgot.

Not. I am on top of it. Haven’t been more on top of anything before. Pinnacle. The zenith. We are just now about to see why i titled this piece so. Don’t get too excited and pee on the rug now. That rug really ties the room together.

Here we go, within this sense of having the fiction and the idea meshed up, we are never shuttered into the existence we create and dismantle with any kind of complete relativistic circle. We have, by default, never (Warning: Assumption, don’t buy into) lived the life of an absolute relativist (..and the whole argument destroyed) without any construction of a priori truth held dear and oh so perfect. Living a life in a certain way does not necessarily mean we haven’t had the counteractive intellectual demands and efforts to negate such a lifestyle but certainly clues us in to a place of human character with which one doesn’t think one thinks what he actually thinks which is given away in the direct route to acts and collective language (as in, you say, ‘Cartesian dualism is crap, then in a week, my mind teaches my body; collectively it took you a week to say nothing, nice). So, we arrive to a place where we see absolutes govern a major part. Then something happens. (The transition – swiftly done.). We see another human being. We are now two. This other exotic beautiful lady comes and looks at the beautiful object. And I look at her. We form a network of aesthetic evaluations. In an absolute world, the object and the beautiful lady coincide at an ontological level as they fulfill the same pleasure. As the creatures of nature of certainty, we are deluded to keep the network on absolutes. It starts to crumble. First, the two perceptions of beauty already creates a preliminary system of relative system. What she feels as beautiful is never approachable by I, as I am trapped in my findings of beauty and how they make me feel. I don’t like making this since it belongs to a skeptic tradition. The never-exhaustive questions after questions sessions don’t help get me to home to eat something.  So nevermind that. The real point is as we get to form large group and socialize in masses, we get new absolutes which are in relation to each other, just because we gotta have them both. We are, however, a temporal-cultural transient thought most likely, in an intense amount of glorified relative interactions to each other, this relativism is digging down the selves of the man and the woman replacing the fundamentals along the way. We are now, most definitely, defined by what “the others” have, say, do. As the social axioms settle down in the time of comparative living of the west and and east, the humanity sinks into a viscous goo crippled (or liberated [liberated by a viscous goo?]) by the others. The more we interact, the greater the ways we interact are, the more attenuated the relative nature of our course, our fundamental reality will be, although we will never cease to drink the vodka.

F.B.

Edit: I faithfully forgot by whom this was inspired. Through his words painted beyond my every description of imagination and horror possible, in Blindness, Jose Saramago told us the story of others and how we hope, pursue, make sense, survive, are defined, powered in multitudes. Thank you Jose. Thank you Joana.

Science in Metaphors

The Haunted Linguistics of Modern Science

When i first thought of this particular dynamics, i felt to have observed (since all we do as thinking consciousnesses is to feel in the brain) that there is something inherently missed in the progress of the scientific dialogue. The topic is inspired by Julia Mead’s presentation ‘Science as Metaphors’ which was given about two weeks ago here in Stony Brook. Without being absolutely certain whether this is an invalid supposition targeted at the roots of our understanding of what constitutes science, it’s as potentially subversive and solely questioning of a subject as any of the first postings of a new blog can claim to be. So here it is with its whole raw power of irresponsibility and the adamant desire for change:

“Anything as a metaphor in the right circumstance, as clarified by you during the presentation, has the swift power to convey the schemes, plans, circuitry of ideas quite elegantly to an uninformed group. Science, I think, is fundamentally unique as a target of metaphors. Science, itself, is formed of metaphors: Raw data is obtained preferably as unbiased as possible, from where the objective background of Science stems from, and when enough raw data is available and correlations are visible, a model, a pathway or a system of interactional relationship is laid down. Assuming no supporting model in retrospect, a scientist models his data of correlations based on the human condition of imagination or creation. Raw correlation is made sense into a tale of form and function. This is where pitfall of the objectivist or the salvation of the phenomenologist shapes what we actually know off of Science. This truth-forming system bases its core relationship to reality on the metaphors the scientist borrows from the sensible world around her. In the model of eukaryotic replication, polymerases slide down the DNA which is two strings wrapped together. Cell cycle is circular. Cdk attaches to cyclin for its activity. A neuron fires. The images of everyday worldly interactions are strikingly obvious. (Since I am a geneticist, what I refer as Science is commonly biology-based. In case of quantum physics, for example, metaphors such as string theory might not be necessarily in the fabric of its science, but might exists as an accessory item to elucidate a heavily mathematical theory, independent of the execution and the maintenance of the science itself in terms of metaphors. A reference to a collision of particles, a shift in space-time still assume a prior knowledge of [and actual breakout from] the Newtonian physics which is profoundly meshed into the metaphors of the world, the earth that is.). This is neither a fallacy nor a misperception since only point of reference we have in determining a system of function is what we sense.

Therefore how I see all of this is that there is an advantage in communicating a system of intricate biological findings for example since the metaphoric background can be quickly returned to in order both to sustain its network of Science and to redirect already faintly-familiar analogies to home, to the public. Philosophy is not as fertile, in comparison, since metaphors usually end up in digression of the core, which is what has already been studied (e.g. Metaphysics).

However, what I really want to put forth is the disadvantage of this “Science in Metaphors” situation. What I think is that the medium of science is shaky in this sense. I think Science should adopt the medium a Metaphor exists in: A language: An essential interconnecting system a priori and basal to the field of study which assumes and reduces it in meaningful bits. From psychology can branch out biological explanation of behavior. For biology, we have chemistry. For chemistry, physics, for physics we somewhat have mathematics. The challenging transformation is actually inhabiting these lands instead picking on them when absolutely vital to and rather staying away put in our definitions by definitions. Biological reasoning should be reformed in terms of thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, Van Der Wall forces, Hydrogen bonds. Chemistry should befriend the physical chemistry and give up to quantum mechanics. The education is most crucial. Once the language of chemistry is adopted in the classroom instead of jumping, sliding, attaching of molecules, then will come a new paradigm shift in the entirety of the field under an language which ‘explains’ the happening not in the metaphors of daily presuppositions of eggs cracking when fallen or of childhood memories of Lego castles.

However, I have two pressing doubts. First, adopting the language might actually alter its field (i.e. words) into becoming the field of the language itself. A chemically explained biology is chemistry in essence. A way of overcoming this is constantly keeping up with function although form might be lost in the language. DNA polymerase movement might be explained strictly in chemical terms but what it does still remains the important outcome of the investigation. Only our way of ‘why’ changes.

Second point is the gap this shift would cause in the communication with the public audience. Since the forthcoming air of metaphoric science no longer exists, the gap between public and scientific understanding expands furthermore in a scale where the missed communication might further be hindered.”

F.B.