Can " Analogies " , serve in our understanding nature ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I was caught up in a ' scientific ' discussion recently , where I was attempting to use ' Analogy ' as a way of developing an idea.

 

A respected colleague on the Forum , 'StringJunky'. Brought up the point , to quote :-

 

" it is the fundamental nature of these things.There's nothing in our sensory world that we can correlate with them accurately, just resorting to analogies, which can only ever be coarse approximations."

 

I have always liked and used ' Analogies ' , to help my mental processes to understand things!

 

In fact I would reason , It has to be ! This enables us to get our grip on reality . Whether it ' is' reality is a different question ?

 

Or is it ?

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Analogies can of course be useful in developing ideas and presenting them. But analogies are analogies and cannot serve as a replacement for the actual science.

 

The same is generally true with interpretations in physics. They can be very useful and even help with pushing one towards new physics, however they cannot actually replace the calculations.

[Strange]

To take an engineering analogy (a meta analogy) it is possible to describe electrical circuits by drawing an analogy between voltage and pressure, current and fluid flow, resistance as narrowing a pipe, capacitance as some sort of bucket, etc.

 

But you can't do anything with those analogies.(Other than give the novice a vague and basically incorrect idea about how things work.) You can't even work out the energy used by a light bulb. And if you want to design an active low pass filter, then you are going to have to get to grips with Z transforms, etc.

[geordief]

I have had the idea in the past that there were two ways of looking at a situation .One was to analyse it and the other to look at it in the round (woods and trees and all that).

 

I also wondered (in my mental wanderings ) whether "form" had its own primal existence (as opposed , I wondered) to "content".

 

But I came up (in my own mind) with no actual examples to show that this existed in any meaningful way.

 

I don't know if (as another meta -parasitic?-analogy ) this has any bearing on the "analogy" vs "nuts and bolts" question I think MSC has brought up.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Analogies can of course be useful in developing ideas and presenting them. But analogies are analogies and cannot serve as a replacement for the actual science.The same is generally true with interpretations in physics. They can be very useful and even help with pushing one towards new physics, however they cannot actually replace the calculations.

Well yes , I know you are stating the ' party Line ' and I would probably guess ,it is what you believe, BUT !

 

Your first line to me has more Impact. Namely " Analogies can of course be useful in developing ideas and presenting them. "

 

Firstly ,though I agree science looks elsewhere to get its 'serve as a replacement ' Physics similarly , and the dreaded Maths similarly.

 

However , I would contend that ' ANALOGIES ' are a whole additional ' pack of cards' , 'coming to the table ' as an effective and equal contributor to the total understanding of what a phenomenon IS . Or put another way what the Nature of Reality IS .

 

So if Science is a contributor without eyes , Maths is a contributor without eyes , then the host of Analogies are the EYES.

These eyes , I would say , gives a far better picture of the ' Whole ' , whereas often science will give ' an aspect' and maths can give 'a formulae and a set of numbers ' by way of definition.

 

I would say that Analogies are the language of the brain! Analogies in the brain , are the models in the brain , by which a view of ' the nature of reality ' , can be struck. Of which the science and the maths can put some factual overlays , serving a specific purpose , ( like how fast , and which bit exactly moves, etc )

 

Mike

To take an engineering analogy (a meta analogy) it is possible to describe electrical circuits by drawing an analogy between voltage and pressure, current and fluid flow, resistance as narrowing a pipe, capacitance as some sort of bucket, etc.

 

But you can't do anything with those analogies.(Other than give the novice a vague and basically incorrect idea about how things work.) You can't even work out the energy used by a light bulb. And if you want to design an active low pass filter, then you are going to have to get to grips with Z transforms, etc.

I agree about the calculations and in fact the design .

 

However driving a Car , my wife , and even I do not think of calculations as I drive. Perhaps the design may cross my mind from time to time , I doubt my wife does . Yet , certainly at my age , my wife is a better and more reliable driver than me .

However , I could argue that analogies , are coming to the fore when ' one ' drives.

 

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

However , I would contend that ' ANALOGIES ' are a whole additional ' pack of cards' , 'coming to the table ' as an effective and equal contributor to the total understanding of what a phenomenon IS . Or put another way what the Nature of Reality IS .

This sounds more like an interpretation, which is basically a wordy description of some mathematical construction or calculation within a physical theory. This is separate from an analogy, but they can be related.

 

 

These eyes , I would say , gives a far better picture of the ' Whole ' , whereas often science will give ' an aspect' and maths can give a formulae and a set of numbers by way of definition.

I think you mean an interpretation here also. Again, they maybe very useful and spur on further lines of inquiry, but in the context of a physical theory one really needs to work with the mathematics. Strange's example is good; one cal think of the flow of electrons as being like the flow of water but you need a mathematical theory here to be able to actually calculate anything.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

?....Again, they maybe very useful and spur on further lines of inquiry, but in the context of a physical theory one really needs to work with the mathematics. Strange's example is good; one cal think of the flow of electrons as being like the flow of water but you need a mathematical theory here to be able to actually calculate anything.

If I was in the process of being struck by lightening . I know which skill I would sooner have in my front brain at the time .

 

Not how many Amps does the ' fork of lightening ,conduct ' , or 'how exactly does lightening come about. '

 

It would be the collection of Images of lightening strikes and how much Damage they do, including killing people . And I would leg it away from the site!

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

But you have not asked a scientific question here. While it is true that you get some intuitive feeling for electricity and even lightning using the water flow analogy, you cannot actually predict numbers to be measured in an experiment. That is the point and why interpretations are limited and why analogies always break down.

 

Your example of lighting strikes does not invalidate what I have said in any way. You get some understanding of lighting, i.e., you know you do not want to get struck, but this is not a deep understanding of electromagnetic phenomena. To get at a deeper understanding you need electromagnetic theory.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Analogies can of course be useful in developing ideas and presenting them. But analogies are analogies and cannot serve as a replacement for the actual science.The same is generally true with interpretations in physics. They can be very useful and even help with pushing one towards new physics, however they cannot actually replace the calculations.

Well of course , I do agree with that totally .

 

But I see the ' analogies ' status being at least on a par with the other two disciplines , if not in fact The need to Dominate the particular field being discussed , rather than some little amusing , unimportant , interruption to the real business.

 

I am not sure the procedure of using Analogies is perceived by most as such an important , essential aspect , as I am describing .

 

In other words , it should have equal if not more importance than :-

 

Yes , but , Where is the Science ? Where is the Maths ?

 

This should have as a pre requisite. Where are the ' stash ' of Analogies , on which this proposition is based.

 

A bit like ' what is the Observation on which this is based?

 

Mike

But you have not asked a scientific question here. While it is true that you get some intuitive feeling for electricity and even lightning using the water flow analogy, you cannot actually predict numbers to be measured in an experiment. That is the point and why interpretations are limited and why analogies always break down.Your example of lighting strikes does not invalidate what I have said in any way. You get some understanding of lighting, i.e., you know you do not want to get struck, but this is not a deep understanding of electromagnetic phenomena. To get at a deeper understanding you need electromagnetic theory.

Yes but it all depends what you want to get out of life ?

 

Survival and a good life , or being able to explain in minute detail the lightning which just struck you dead.

 

 

That apart , I am suggesting that some aspects of scientific progress are being slowed down , unnecessarily by not giving enough credence to the value of ' analogies ' throughout the whole process of science .

 

Ranging from

 

Observation , to hypothesis, to document research , to calculation , to experimentation , to results , conclusions, to publishing .

 

I am suggesting that ' Analogisation ' ( namely translating the stage or aspect to a set of analogies ) should have a ranking in here somewhere . Perhaps at several points in the process.

 

Not viewed as a little ' party trick '

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

I am not sure the procedure of using Analogies is perceived by most as such an important , essential aspect , as I am describing.

Analogies typically highlight some feature of a given theory, but they always fail to capture the whole story. For example, Einstein's picture of gravity in terms of a bowling ball on a trampoline is a useful analogy. However, it does not describe the true physics of gravitational phenomena, it only highlights the fact that masses deform space-time and that this means that test particles do not follow straight lines anymore. This picture could never replace or be seen as equal to doing the actual mathematics. Moreover, the analogy breaks down as gravity comes into play as to why the trampoline skin deforms at all! Then what is space-time deforming into? You see the analogy leads to questions that are moot if you understand the mathematics and that we have just an analogy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Analogies typically highlight some feature of a given theory, but they always fail to capture the whole story. For example, Einstein's picture of gravity in terms of a bowling ball on a trampoline is a useful analogy. However, it does not describe the true physics of gravitational phenomena, it only highlights the fact that masses deform space-time and that this means that test particles do not follow straight lines anymore. This picture could never replace or be seen as equal to doing the actual mathematics. Moreover, the analogy breaks down as gravity comes into play as to why the trampoline skin deforms at all! Then what is space-time deforming into? You see the analogy leads to questions that are moot if you understand the mathematics and that we have just an analogy.

Yes well, I agree , whole heartedly with what you say here . I have always felt that about the ' rubber sheet ' picture. That is why I am saying you need almost a pack of cards , style of analogies, one is insufficient ! But similarly a mathematical prediction , though true , may only be one small facet description of what is going on , countless other values may be required to give a complete picture. So with Analogies! Also similarly with physics explanations. A particular physics explanation may only cover one small aspect of what is actually in Total " what is going on ? "

 

 

Ps. What I am not saying is that An individual Analogies can stand totally in their own right . As you say the analogy will break down . As it is not the real thing . But I would contend that an individual aspect of analogy , maths calculation , or physics theory . Will each be only a facet, an incomplete picture of Reality!

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Can analogies serve in our understanding of nature? Yes. They can help you understand a concept. But they are not a distinct facet. They are a bridge to understanding when you can't comprehend another way. There's nothing contained in an analogy that's not already in the model.

 

And science says little or nothing about reality.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Can analogies serve in our understanding of nature? Yes. They can help you understand a concept. But they are not a distinct facet. They are a bridge to understanding when you can't comprehend another way. There's nothing contained in an analogy that's not already in the model.

 

And science says little or nothing about reality.

 

Does the model not include ' analogies ' , what quite do you mean , when you say model ?

 

And I thought science , was an attempt , amongst other things , to understand nature .

What have I been doing all these years , I thought I was getting somewhere near to understanding nature . Or are you going to tell me science is just procedures that work ? I think I had better go out and shoot myself !

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

As I see it science works better (not perfectly) when we take the human/subjective element out of it (it is one of the scientific method's principle tasks,surely)

 

Of course to enjoy and to a degree appreciate science we have to reintroduce the human/subjective element.

 

There should also be a (objective) science of the subjective element but this may be a contradiction in terms...

 

Can we go through life improving our understanding of our own nature ,feelings and actions? I like to think so but I cannot say it is so -especially as we are all tending to dissolution and degradation....

[ajb]

Does the model not include ' analogies ' , what quite do you mean , when you say model ?

In the context of physics one would mean an mathematical model.

 

And I thought science , was an attempt , amongst other things , to understand nature .

Understand nature yes, but in the sense that we build mathematical models in order to make numerical predictions that we can match with observations/experiments. The question of 'truth' and 'reality' are more philosophical than scientific questions.

[Strange]

And I thought science , was an attempt , amongst other things , to understand nature .

What have I been doing all these years , I thought I was getting somewhere near to understanding nature . Or are you going to tell me science is just procedures that work ? I think I had better go out and shoot myself !

 

There are many ways to understand nature: art, science, intuition, philosophy, etc.

 

The thing that sets science apart is that it is "useful"; in other words it works and can be used to produce technology.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Why do I have this romantic notions , of yesteryear. Then bearded, grey haired men , and tightly combed women in lab coats , pouring over fumes , test tubes, electrical coils sparks , breaking ground in the sphere of experimentation . They , with no other driver , than finding things out . Driven by an inner feeling that they personally believed might allow them insight into some inner secret of nature.

 

What happened to those times ? Where is the fun and excitement ?

 

Mike

[geordief]

Fun and excitement is all around but you will not find it in method. The method is the prelude (literal meaning of prelude is a clue -"before games" ) to the fun and excitement.

 

"Work and play " is another meta analogy here.

Edited March 10, 2016 by geordief

[ajb]

What happened to those times ? Where is the fun and excitement ?

What has this got to do with analogies and interpretations?

 

There is still a lot of excitement in science.

[Phi for All]

However , I would contend that ' ANALOGIES ' are a whole additional ' pack of cards' , 'coming to the table ' as an effective and equal contributor to the total understanding of what a phenomenon IS . Or put another way what the Nature of Reality IS .

 

I don't see how you can consider analogy to part of the nature of "reality". It's NOT the real situation, it's merely analogous.

 

As someone who has relied heavily on analogy to explain various phenomena in discussions here over the last decade, I can say that it often causes more problems than it solves. People always stretch them too far. I think the less educated someone is in a subject, the more analogy can cause confusion and misunderstanding. And you reach a point in your knowledge of a subject where analogy is no longer necessary.

 

So I would say analogies best serve a small portion of people who are fairly well up on a subject, and just need a change of perspective perhaps for more clarity. After that, it's like advice; wise men don't need it, and fools will abuse it, and stretch it into unrecognizability.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Fun and excitement is all around but you will not find it in method. The method is the prelude (literal meaning of prelude is a clue -"before games" ) to the fun and excitement.

 

"Work and play " is another meta analogy here.

 

This was an experiment by such a man :-

 

What happened to those times ? Where is the fun and excitement ?

 

?

 

Oh ! Those Halcyon Days

 

Mike

[ajb]

What happened to those times ? Where is the fun and excitement ?

But what has this got to do with your opening questions? (Which I think various people have answered)

 

This seems quite off topic.

[geordief]

 

This seems quite off topic.

possibly the point

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In the context of physics one would mean an mathematical model.Understand nature yes, but in the sense that we build mathematical models in order to make numerical predictions that we can match with observations/experiments. The question of 'truth' and 'reality' are more philosophical than scientific questions.

If what you say is true ( which it might well be currently true ) . We are going to miss out on things that possibly do NOT have a mathematical derivative , or for that matter may not have a ' science as we know it '. Derivative .

And by not using a different tool ( like one heavily packed with Analogies ) , we might be in danger of ' missing a trick ' , like driving a ship in dense Fog , past an island , that could do us some merit in an ensuing storm .

 

Mike

[ajb]

If what you say is true ( which it might well be currently true ) . We are going to miss out on things that possibly do NOT have a mathematical derivative , or for that matter may not have a ' science as we know it '. Derivative .

And by not using a different tool ( like one heavily packed with Analogies ) , we might be in danger of ' missing a trick ' , like driving a ship in dense Fog , past an island , that could do us some merit in an ensuing storm .

I do not really follow your point.

 

People use analogies all the time in science, though by the nature of analogies, they are used informally as ways to help understanding. Analogies may be useful in pointing towards new ideas. So it is not as if scientists do not like to use analogies, just they are careful in how they are used. The same is true in mathematics, sometimes it can be helpful to think more 'physically' when looking for ideas or interpretations of the mathematics, but when all is said and done, one needs to write the mathematics out properly.