Figuring out the science from the language
Keith S. Taber
"in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to the ozone layer"
Language as a source of understanding – or confusion
Language can seem more like sorcery than science.
A person has an idea, something that is an internal, personal, mental experience, and by making some sounds or inscribing some symbols on a page or board, another person can acquire the idea.
Image from 'Debugging Teaching'
But, like all powerful magic, it only works in the right circumstances, when the ritual is followed carefully – or else the spell may be broken. In other words, although it is quite amazing how we can effectively communicate through language (something humans have evolved over an extended period to be able to learn to do), successful communication is by no means assured. Teachers are only to well aware of that. A carefully designed, clearly explained, well-paced, presentation may lead to
- canonical understanding, or
- mystification and confusion, or
- misconception.
And, indeed, sometimes in the classroom the same presentation can lead to all three. Communication is effective to the extent it is designed to fit with the characteristics of the 'receiving device'. And just as an F.M. transmission will not be effectively picked up by a radio tuned to medium wave or long wave frequencies (or, for young readers, who only know about digital radios – perhaps think about those times when you have a device with one type of output cable, which you are trying to connect to another device which only has input sockets for other types of connector), every learner in the class brings a unique set of interpretive resources for making sense of teaching.
Image from 'Debugging Teaching'
A large part of the work of the teacher (or other science communicator) is helping to make the unfamiliar seem familiar by using language to describe it, or comparing it to something learners will hopefully already be familiar with.1 We use various comparisons like analogies (e.g., 'molecules in a solid are like angry dogs on short chains') and figures of speech such as similes ('an immune response is like a fire'), to help learners get an initial image they can understand, even if often this is only a starting point that needs to be further developed. The teacher, then, is operating with a model (if sometimes only a tacit one) of the resources available to learners for interpreting teaching – and clearly there is a limit to how much teachers can know about what their students are already familiar with.
Image from 'Debugging Teaching'
These kind of tropes (similes, metaphors, etc.) are also found in popular science writing, science journalism, and scientists' own accounts of their work. Since retiring from my own teaching role, I have had more time for reading, and have become quite obsessed with just how common such comparisons are -as well as how obscure some examples seem to be.
That is, figurative language is meant to communicate by linking to something already familiar, but sometimes I do wonder just what the average reader of popular science works or science journalism make of some of the examples I come across. If I was still in post (and had the energy to match my inquisitiveness) I would love to set up some research to find out just what learners would make of some of these examples. Some instances, I am sure, are clear enough, but others seem to require much interpretation or draw upon references that may not be familiar. In the case of historical writings, what were at the time useful references may now be archaic (as when Charles Darwin describes the shape of part of a flower as being like those devices used in London [sic] kitchens to catch cockroaches – you know the ones!)
In some cases I suspect I can only understand the comparison because I already know the science. If you want some convincing of that, you might like to take a look at some examples I have noted down and see which you feel are clear and obvious enough to get an idea across to someone new to the science:
- some examples of science analogies
- some examples of science similes
- some examples of science metaphors
Anthropomorphising chemicals
A particular type of figurative language is anthropomorphism where we refer to non-human entities (ants, trees, crystals, clouds, etc.) as if they were humans with human attributes – feelings, competencies, thoughts, motivations, desires and so on (e.g., 'the biosphere has learned to recycle phosphorus'). When anthropomorphism occurs in scientific explanations it can be considered as a kind of pseudo-explanation: something which gives the impression of an explanation, but without employing valid scientific concepts and reasoning.2 (The biosphere has not learned to do anything.)
Although anthropomorphic language may only be used figuratively, and so is not meant to be taken literally, learners may not fully appreciate this. How many students, even at A level, think that chemical reactions occur because the atoms involved want or need to acquire full electrons shells or outer-shell octets? That is a rhetorical question – but I know from experience, many. (Of course, it is a nonsense, even in its own terms, as nearly all the reactions learners meet in school science involve both products and reactants which fit the octet rule.) 3
But then, sometimes, such figurative language offers economy, avoiding the need for complex explanations. So, perhaps there is a balance of considerations – but I am always somewhat wary of anthropomorphic explanations in science.
Hard working chemicals?
These thoughts were (once again) provoked by something I heard on a podcast this morning. I was listening to an episode of the BBC Inside Science programme/podcast, and heard:
"…our aircraft only really release chemicals up until about ten to twelve km, whereas these rockets are going all the way to eighty, a hundred kilometres, so putting these chemicals into multiple layers in the atmosphere. One of these layers is a layer of ozone that is crucial for protecting us from harmful UV radiation. And so, you know, in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to that layer, but now, with rockets, we can just put them directly into that layer."
Prof. Eloise Marais (Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Air Quality, UCL)
Now what struck me was the phrase " the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to that layer". This is anthropomorphic as it implies that these chemicals are deliberately acting in order to reach the so-called 'ozone layer'.4 Of course they are not. These are just natural processes – physical processes that do not involve any chemicals working hard. Indeed, the molecules of these chemicals are passive subjects moved around without their knowledge or consent! (Because, of course, they are not the type of entities capable of knowing anything or giving consent, let alone actively working towards a goal.)
But the phrasing was economic. I challenged myself to rewrite the phrase "in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to that layer" without the anthropomorphism.
| anrthropomorphic | rewritten |
| "…in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to that layer…" | "…in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals take a lot longer to reach that layer because this relies on the diffusion of gas molecules through the air, and the effect of convection currents mixing up different regions of the atmosphere…" |
Now, I am not an atmospheric chemistry expert (unlike Prof. Marais) but that seems a more scientific explanation. And I would imagine that in her mind Prof. Marais understands this process in a similar – if likely more sophisticated, and certainly more detailed – way. But she chose (perhaps deliberately, perhaps not given our use of language in speech is partially automatic – we do not fully script what we are going to say before we start to talk) to anthropomorphise rather than specify a scientific mechanism. I doubt many listeners took the figure of speech here as literal (although you never know!) and Prof. Marais kept her comments more economic by not introducing ideas that were perhaps peripheral to her message: anthropocentric inputs into the atmosphere reach the stratosphere, where some polluting chemicals react with ozone, much more readily if we send them directly there by rocket, rather than release them near the ground.
Anthropomorphism, as a kind of humanising language, has been said to be useful to engage learners, as well as sometimes (as in the example here) being a way to avoid the need to go into technical details that may be quite unrelated to the main point being made. People can respond well to anthropomorphism, being more attentive and receptive to ideas presented in human terms (so, perhaps referring to hard working chemicals engaged listeners more than simply saying: "in the past we have tried to address this by controlling industrial sources that are close to the earth where the chemicals take a lot longer to reach that layer").5
Therefore, I am not saying this was wrong or poorly judged, but whenever I hear such examples it makes we wonder if the causal listener who is not a scientist would notice the anthropomorphism, and realise that it was being used as an engaging alternative to a dry technical phrase, or even as an abbreviated placeholder for a more technical description. And this is not an example of something rare – anthropomorphic explanations are again very common in science writing and discourse. I have compiled some examples that I have noticed:
Some examples of anthropomorphism in science
In some of those cases I suspect non-scientists may well find the language used quite persuasive, and not appreciate that 'explanations' presented in anthropomorphic terms are not scientifically valid. So, although I can certainly see the case for its use, I tend to be uneasy when I hear or read anthropomorphic statements that stand in the place of scientific accounts, as I know they can be persuasive and are sometimes adopted as explanations by learners.
I wonder what other science teachers think?
Notes:
1 In order for learners to make sense of abstract, complex ideas these need to:
- preferably be experienced or demonstrated; or when that is not possible,
- modelled/simulated; or when that is not possible,
- explained in terms of ideas the learners can already relate to.
Read about making the unfamiliar familiar
2 There are different types of pseudo-explanations, such as tautology, presenting a description as if it is an explanation, offering a label as though that explains, etc.
Read about types of pseudo-explanations found in science
3 I think this is perhaps the most widespread type of misconception in school chemistry – that reactions occurs so that atoms can get full shells (or octets), that entities with full shells are always the more stable, that atoms of ions with fulls shells cannot be ionised, that atoms will spontaneously lose electrons to get a full shell, etc., and, indirectly from this, that the bonding power of ions is determined by electrovalency (so, in NaCl, the Na+ ion and the Cl– ion are each thought to be restricted to forming one ionic bond).
Read about the octet rule alternative conceptual framework
4 Experts, such as science teachers, know that the 'ozone layer' is not a layer of ozone, but it should not surprise us when learners think that is what the term means!
'there is a discrete but incomplete layer of ozone in the atmosphere'
5 Perhaps, metaphorically, "…the chemicals have to work a lot harder to get to that layer…" is a 'warmer' expression than the 'colder' phrase "the chemicals take a lot longer to reach that layer"?
