Debra points out that the homework text on ontologies of energy in the energy courses tells that they sanction the quasi-substance metaphor.
In our research, we side with Allie in that it is not a viable option to talk of energy (and other abstract state functions, process variables, etc.) without using metaphor. It may be technically possible, but leads to long awkward sentences: http://www.tameramin.com/Exploring%20CMs%20in%20Solving%20Problems%20on%20Entropy_JLS_accepted%20ms.pdf
Even Feynman, who claims that energy is very abstact, uses concrete metaphorical language in relation to energy himself (as argued by Amin: http://conceptualchange.it.helsinki.fi/background/amin_2009_conceptual_metaphor%20meets_conceptual_change.pdf)
I think the answer to this question depends on whether or not energy is a true physical reality. (Let's avoid quantum mechanical philosophy that suggests "nothing is real." If evidence suggests that energy can only be talked about metaphorically, even by the most expert sense-makers, does that then suggest energy is merely a convenient human construct, a useful thought pattern, that helps us organize our thinking about the world? That physically, energy does not exist?
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, is there a base of literature dealing with this same idea in quantum mechanics? For instance, it seems the idea of energy may be quite parallel to the idea of the wavefunction.
As a response to the first question, I think we have to separate between what we are able to represent in mathematical notation vs. in natural language. The ontological question of whether energy actually exists or not is a field I have never dared to enter...
DeleteThe second question: Yes, Brookes and Etkina have looked into metaphorical language in relation to QM. Among other things, they have found that students tend to interpret location metaphors, e.g. "the electron is in the ground state”, too literally (as location in a physical container): http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v3/i1/e010105
Their instructional recommendations are somewhat rigid in my view, as they try to single out one correct metaphorical way of expression per concept, aligned with its adequate physical ontology. We side with Gupta et al. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508406.2010.491751) and Rachel (http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1413/343/1) in welcoming a range of metaphorical figures of for individual concepts, to be applied flexibly depending upon the context.
Jesper,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any follow up comments on our discussion from yesterday?
When I presented the clips at our I-RISE discussion yesterday, we looked at the interaction between Allie and Debra, and the gradual development of their ideas on metaphorical language in relation to energy.
ReplyDeleteAllie had thought about this issues overnight and come to the conclusion that it is not possible to talk about energy without recourse to metaphor (overall).
Debra means that the quasi-material substance metaphor is inbedded/ingrained in ET (as they had read about), but that in "proper" physics language or "orthodox" teaching, the language would be more literal.
Allie counters that even formal physics language is based on metaphor. She has actually tried to come up with literal sentences, but has failed. (We would have loved seeing her examples). Debra seems to be intrigued by this perspective she hasn't thought of.
In our discussion, KD brought up that there is a difference between figurative language (e.g. love is a rose) and the subtler metaphorical origins of ordinary language in focus within the framework of conceptual metaphor. An example, the different meanings of prepositions: You get IN a car, but ON a bus. Why is that?