Consider a container full of a gas such as air and imagine that it is composed of minuscule elastic spheres bouncing around. It can be assumed that the mechanical behavior of the spheres is similar to the behavior of colliding billiard balls. From this assumption, a theory can be put forward, the one of Kinetic Theory of Gases that involves equations interrelating the velocity (p), mass (m), momentum and energy of the hypothetical spheres. None of these theoretical properties can be physically observed. On the other hand, some theoretical terms could be related to observable properties of the gas, for instance, a change in the momentum of the collision amongst particle with the containing wall may be identified as the pressure of the gas. These assumptions lead to Boyle’s Law stating that if the volume of a gas is reduced by 50% then the pressure of the gas will double. (e.g. compressing air during a bicycle jump).
Hypothetical minuscule elastic spheres were assumed to have mass and velocity similarly to billiard balls do although no color. The analogies are not simply formal like they are in mathematics, they may be physical, elasticity and mass. In the creation of a theory, scientist may suggest a model incorporating analogies drawn from a variety of familiar situations combined with radically new assumptions. In the diagram below, all the lines going into the model are represented as dotted due to their origins lying in an act of creative imagination instead of making a purely logic based inference. Generally speaking, dotted arrows should be added coming in from other familiar situations, on the left. When imagining a model, there are explicit or implicit references to what is similar and previously intelligible, furthermore there is freedom allowing to interpret a phenomena in the desired model. It can be assigned to any property that are thought of as fruitful contributors to the theory. This depends on the perception of the scientist of the phenomena in question. Therefore, since theoretical models are based on a scientists interpretation of what they perceive and the analogy that is made to an already known model, models do not provide a fully reliable and accurate representation of reality. Theoretical models can further be perceived as subjective and self determined, thus the numerous debates and disagreements amongst scientists concerning more complex models. Theoretical models convey associations and implications that aren’t specifically determined and that may be transferred if a shit in paradigm occurs due to the application of a different analogy to the phenomena. Additional developments and modifications may be proposed.
“A metaphor proposes analogies between the familiar context of a word and a new context into which it is introduced ”. Models can be compared to metaphors due their similar property of open-endedness. Max Black said that ‘It may help us to notice what would otherwise be overlooked and to shift the relative emphasis attached to details -- in short, to see new connections.”
A model suggests new ways of perceiving a situation that presents problems by transferring some of the features of another given situation that is fully understood. The implications implied by the use of a metaphor to refer to a model is not merely subjective as it is employed by the majority of a community using a language. For instance, the use of an analogy that might not have been essential to the formulation of the model could potentially influence the development of the paradigm. Science, most often doesn’t recognize the line separating theoretical language from observational language; the distinction is relative to the situation and depends on the context. A close parallel between the interaction of metaphorical language and literal language can be made, there is a lack of division line between the two. ‘Billiard-ball model’ incites one to think about the whole kinetic gas model as a pool table and the movement of billiard balls. The term was initially introduced as an analogy to visualize a non ‘touchable’ matter. The metaphor has now become a standard reference and is often used to teach with in education. Metaphors, like models, have the potential to extend language and influence the literal recordings of facts and therefore create new meanings. Since the new meanings are based on analogies from the start, they could have distorted the reality of the model to a great extent, providing a less accurate representation. A metaphor evokes emotional responses whereas a scientific model was designed to be systematically developed, specifying the positive and negative analogy although the neutral analogy is open ended and leaves spaced for further interpretation. Furthermore, a scientific model leads to a testable theory. Nevertheless, the similarities between metaphors and models are significant enough to illustrate the importance of imagining analogies. Metaphors aren’t literally true, although, according to Wheelwright, they do “say something, however tentatively and obliquely, about the nature of what is”. Metaphors help illustrate a model by drawing a direct comparison between the phenomena that is desired to be represented with an analogy that is already existent in our world, defined, explained and understood.
The ‘double-helix’ model of the DNA molecules in biology is also considered as a theoretical model, but that one specifically is closer to observational evidence that can be collected in a lab and can therefore be literally taken. Nevertheless, even in this theoretical model, only a defined number of aspects that compose world are brought into prominence, while a few more are neglected. For instance, the model exhibits the spatial relationships between the DNA components but doesn’t take account of the character of the existing bonds between them.
In conclusion, models are used in various manner in science. They serve different functions among which you may find practical and theoretical. Theoretical models are innovative mental constructions based on imagination, perception and the ability to relate to already existing models. They end up in a combination of analogies that are usually open-ended and leave space for further development and possibility for shifts in interpretation. Models are usually taken very seriously but not literarily as they are only simplistic representations of complex phenomena. They can’t be defined as pictures of reality nor useful fictions, rather as inadequate and partial manners of imagining and creating what is not observable – in theoretical models.
by
nb17 (student)
