On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 12:05 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can see why you're interest in metaphors. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026, 11:40 AM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> EricS, I stipulate that there is no scoundrel worse than the old >> professor that insists that others read his old papers. It is one of two >> papers in which I engage in "formal" metaphor analysis. I think it is, of >> all the papers I have written, the most interesting, not because it is the >> best, but because the can of worms it opens is largest and juiciest. You >> will find it at >> >> Thompson, Nicholas S. “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the >> Group Level.” *Behavior and Philosophy*, vol. 28, no. 1/2, 2000, pp. >> 83–101. *JSTOR*, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27759407. Accessed 27 Mar. >> 2026. >> >> There is no pay wall, but there is a song and dance. I will try to >> attach a copy below. I think I will stand or fall on the value of this >> paper as a demonstration of the manner in which metaphors can guide useful >> arguments if taken seriously. >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 5:34 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This is a great note, in the sense of being helpful from endless going >>> around in circles, and written to get somewhere. I am always grateful when >>> EricC visits from the Oort cloud and enables a conversation to go into some >>> direction again. >>> >>> I want, though (of course) to object to something. And a paragraph >>> below enables me to see the way I want to do it. EC already understands >>> the source of the objection, and I will include the final paragraph where >>> it is flagged, though I want to beware oversimplifying to the point of >>> having strawmen (which I don’t think is being done here). But first; the >>> objection: >>> >>> >>> On Mar 26, 2026, at 16:25, Eric Charles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> There are at least three interesting things going on in the >>> metaphor discussion. The least interesting aspect of it is squabbling over >>> what does or does not count as a metaphor (vice simile, model, analogy, >>> etc.). Not that that isn't a perfectly good discussion, it just that it's >>> *just* a vocabulary discussion, not an ideas discussion. >>> >>> 1) What is an explicit metaphor, and to what extent do the constant >>> implicit metaphors that permeate our language resemble them? Nick has a >>> particular way of thinking about metaphors, based on the intent of the >>> person invoking the metaphor. Metaphors always assert that two things are >>> alike, not that they are identical, so that implies that all metaphors are >>> imperfect, and that that is intentional, and does not invalidate a >>> metaphor. Metaphors can thus be divided into intended implications and >>> not-intended implication, etc., etc. .... and Nick is fairly obsessed with >>> these, especially in scientific contexts where people seem to be using the >>> metaphors in different ways and that leads to a deep underlying confusion >>> in a seemingly functional field, e.g., Darwinian evolution by means of >>> "natural" selection.... >>> >>> >>> This is the poster child for a thing that to me is the ultimate >>> non-issue, and has been shown to be the non-issue it is for many decades >>> now. >>> >>> Look up George Price: >>> sciencedirect.com >>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X> >>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X> >>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X> >>> https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/1995-price.pdf >>> >>> Price lays out, to a perfectly acceptable degree, an operational >>> description. Of sets of things, of partitioning, of some’s being retained >>> and others’ being eliminated, from the ongoing history of sets that are the >>> targets of description. It’s a phenomenon that takes place in nature, in >>> all sorts of forms. We need some lexeme to refer to it. What is a good >>> one? Selection seems about as apt as anything in English. Quite beside >>> the fact that Darwin wrote about animal breeding, this will still be >>> perhaps the most apt word I have available. Not merely “sorting”, because >>> I need also the consequence of the sort that a retention/elimination step >>> ensues. Human intentionality is not imputed to the phenomenon itself at >>> all, though there can be a subset of cases where it enters as part of the >>> chain of causation. >>> >>> When anybody resurrects this zombie of claiming that some terrible >>> metaphor of human breeding-selection is indelible in the cognition of >>> people thinking about evolution that leads them into confusion, my >>> experience of the conversation is much like the experiences I have had with >>> the Implicit Bias crowd. It doesn’t take much time around many of them, >>> before I am pretty firmly convinced that what they want is to condemn >>> basically everybody (but, one by one, whomever they are talking to). (The >>> nicest image that comes to mind is Aunt Ada’s “I saw something nasty in the >>> woodshed” from Cold Comfort Farm, with about as much content.) The >>> motivation is the whole, and any conversation will take whatever sophistic >>> form gives the performance of fulfilling the motivation. To be clear about >>> what really is going on, and to think well about it and improve the way we >>> handle such problems in living, is incidental to why they do what they do. >>> A kind of trojan horse of a kind we so often see: the existence of a >>> legitimate justice aim becomes a vehicle for people who want to play >>> domination games and to bully. They don’t erase the legitimate justice >>> aim, but by having little serious interest in it (or a secondary and >>> self-serving one, at best), they move it out of scope for any interaction >>> you can have with them. At which point I don’t feel like feeding the >>> trolls. Talk to me about really understanding and really helping, and stop >>> the performing and pretending, or leave me alone. >>> >>> I do think one has to have some interest in knowing what people are >>> doing, in context of the commitment to get thoughts clear and to solve some >>> problems for which the solution has criteria, to keep such intuitions from >>> turning into strawmen. >>> >>> >>> The paragraph I promised to acknowledge, which I think also sees all >>> this, was this one: >>> >>> I suspect that much of the frustration of Nick v others on this list is >>> the instance of those others that any implications of the flavor text can >>> be ignored once the mechanism has been mathematized, vs Nick's instance >>> that if the flavor text is still being used it is almost certainly doing >>> some metaphor-like work in the background of whoever is using, or hearing, >>> the term (because otherwise, why not ditch it entirely). >>> >>> >>> Eric(S) >>> >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> Clark University >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> https://substack.com/@monist >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
