Language of Science

Language efficaciously plays a vital role in the scientific field of life. Scientists need to be able to communicate with one another in order to produce observations, explanations and make predictions of real world phenomenas. This allows language to be fundamental in terms of science because it is a branch that is driven by the focus of our knowledge constantly developing. Ultimately, this is accomplished through the use of trial and error, new theoretical perceptions and experiments that stimulates new ideas. There is no doubt that this critically enlighten ones thoughts and perceptions of the scientific world around us. 

The role of language in science is an ongoing discussion as some writers seem to debate about the significant use of linguistic metaphors in scientific context. As evident in the article published by the Scientific America that implies how metaphors does not always work for everyone. The article expresses how scientists themselves may lack common sense or even humour to understand specific metaphors. This leads to there point that the human language is imperfect and so is the human brain thus, we can see things the way we want and miss the things we shouldn't. Whereas the article published by Phillip Ball expresses how metaphor is widely considered an essential tool for understanding. This is because the pathetic fallacy is an ingrained and profoundly influential habit, especially in biology, where animations of intelligent agency seem irresistible even to those who deplore them. As evident when he states how it is able: "Capture the practical mechanics of the science poetically, to sneak up quietly on the vital heart of the subject through non-metaphorical innuendo and implication would, to put it bluntly, take a time exceeding most normal human lifespans." Clearly this outlook on metaphors is a juxtaposition compared to the first article as it contrasts with Article #1 perspective that articulates how metaphors lack the depth of communication of which leads one to vaguely recognise the scientific significance. Whereas Article 2 believes that it does not have a "misleading mentality" but rather are "heavy implements that get the job done". 

Coined by Alfred Korzybski, he believes that our view of the world is being generated by our brain and can be expressed as a 'map' of reality illustrated in neural patterns. To justify, reality exists outside our mind however; we can manifest models of this 'territory' based on what we perceive through our senses. The contrasting perspectives of metaphors in the scientific world relates to Alfred Korzybski's assertion that "the map is not the territory" as it displays the contrasting differences between belief and reality. This is similar to the way we recognise metaphors and how they diverge from its true definition. Thus, our understanding on a scientific contextual concept has a possibility of being altered. In my opinion we must seek vigilant consideration of how we use language in science as it may nourish a variety of perspectives that would allows us to construct a better outlook of life in the the scientific world.