Reply to comment

After watching the clip from Dr. Taylor’s video, I did not form a more skeptical view of her. Of course, I realized that some of her facts were outdated or skewed but more than anything at all that Taylor was doing was hyperbolizing the importance of metaphors in science. I was in a class two weeks ago where we discussed just this. The class concluded that in many ways nothing could fully be explained without the use of metaphors because everything we show or support comes from a subjective viewpoint that must be modified towards a broader audience. There are many reasons to do this; to get more funding for more research and thus, more metaphors; to create a consensus of knowledge based on an idea of understanding that is shared by both experts and novices alike; and to perpetuate the inherent need for communication in all scientific fields. Taylor truly exemplified metaphors in a way that is more traditionally shared by religious fanatics, but she is doing nothing avant-garde here. She is just changing style but not substance. So, I truly hold no prejudice against her views and message. Just because her metaphor for scientific truth is expressed in a livelier fashion I would argue that this is no way, shape, or form should reflect on the validity of her message. All scientists do this in fact all people do this. What is communication without metaphor, really? Does anyone really know exactly what we are talking about? No, they don’t, but that’s why it is so important for us to try to relate meaning to one another. Alas, meaning does not always mean truth. Scientists, Taylor, and non-scientists-alike, share this burden.  

Furthermore, I do not believe that Taylor was trying to promote a hard-science as much as an important message. Taylor wanted to convey the importance of living a fuller and more meaningful life, but did so in a more graspable form of science. Maybe she understands that it is easier to spread her message to more of the people who need it most in more understandable forms. Maybe she doesn’t even truly believe in right vs. left brainedness. Maybe that is just one of her many metaphors, except this metaphor in particular may be based on the knowledge that more people will take her seriously if she conveys a certain format of a message within the framework of her identity as a scientist. It is not important that these details are correct as long as her overarching rainbow of enlightenment not only shines the brightest in the sky, but also reaches the most lands. In fact, her facts are not all facts, but expressions of a truer meaning and reality that are almost impossible to accurately convey no matter how lively or dully stated. Isn’t every word a metaphor for some intangible meaning? Don’t attack expression just be open to a different meaning in unexpected contexts.