Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 16, 2023, 10:53:50 AM
-
This would appear to be good news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67435266
-
Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.
-
Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.
I'd argue here that since you are changing something to 'improve' it, the blueprint metaphor works better.
As to the 'literally a code', I'd suggest that a code is generally seen as an intentional attempt to communicate which doesn't apply to DNA. The consistent use of the word code for it then leads to the uninteresting but persistent mantra that a code needs a 'codemaker'.
-
Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.
A recipe would be a far better metaphor.
-
A recipe would be a far better metaphor.
"Code" is better still, because, as I said, it isn't a metaphor it's the plain truth. DNA is a code!
-
"Code" is better still, because, as I said, it isn't a metaphor it's the plain truth. DNA is a code!
By what definition?
-
By what definition?
By the definition of the word "code"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code
-
By the definition of the word "code"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
That's still using a metaphor, rather like natural selection. Both get into the issue that the terms used more generally have intention baked in.
-
That's still using a metaphor, rather like natural selection. Both get into the issue that the terms used more generally have intention baked in.
Bullshit. It is an evolved code, but still a code.
-
Bullshit. It is an evolved code, but still a code.
A code is in the generalised meaning an attempt to communicate. Within that, there is an intent to communicate. DNA has neither the intent, nor is it an attempt at communication.
There was a rather brilliant story written about Dawkins that as a child his parents invited all the good fairies to his 'christening'. They arrive and give him gifts of intelligence, good looks, and communication skills.
Just then the bad fairy who was not invited, turns up in a fabulous dress and considerable umbrage. She looks down at Clinton cooing in his cot and curses him with the gift of metaphor.
-
[quote author=Nearly Sane link=topic=20681.msg874139#msg874139 date=1700164226
There was a rather brilliant story written about Dawkins that as a child his parents invited all the good fairies to his 'christening'. They arrive and give him gifts of intelligence, good looks, and communication skills.
Just then the bad fairy who was not invited, turns up in a fabulous dress and considerable umbrage. She looks down at Clinton cooing in his cot and curses him with the gift of metaphor.
[/quote]Who is "Clinton"? Assuming you meant "Richard", he is on record as saying that he deplores the use of dodgy metaphors by religious people!
-
Who is "Clinton"? Assuming you meant "Richard", he is on record as saying that he deplores the use of dodgy metaphors by religious people!
Clinton is Dawkins first name I like the alliteration it offered.
The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.
-
Clinton is Dawkins first name I like the alliteration it offered.
The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.
Who says a code always needs a codemaker? Every other code that we know of was intelligently designed, but then so was every blueprint we know of. DNA is the one code we know of that has evolved by natural selection.
-
The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.
Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to avoid metaphor when explaining science to laypeople. None of the terms suggested here really capture fully what DNA is, without some possibility of misunderstanding.
I think probably 'code' is the most technically accurate but it's as wide open to misunderstanding as the other suggestions.
-
Who says a code always needs a codemaker? Every other code that we know of was intelligently designed, but then so was every blueprint we know of. DNA is the one code we know of that has evolved by natural selection.
It's part of the generalised definition of what a code is. Codes do not exist in some Platonic realm to be discovered by people or nature. The reason that we use the metaphor for DNA is to help people understand it by some similarities.
-
Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to avoid metaphor when explaining science to laypeople. None of the terms suggested hear really capture fully what DNA is, without some possibility of misunderstanding.
I think probably 'code' is the most technically accurate but it's as wide open to misunderstanding as the other suggestions.
And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.
-
And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.
No, it bloody well isn't! Have you ever in your life admitted that you were wrong, however conclusive the arguments brought against you?
-
No, it bloody well isn't! Have you ever in your life admitted that you were wrong, however conclusive the arguments brought against you?
Let's try again. What is the definition of 'code' that you are using?
-
This, more or less. DNA is a chemical version of this.
-
This, more or less. DNA is a chemical version of this.
And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities.
-
And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities.
No, it doesn't. There are all sorts of chemical communications going on in the bodies of organisms. Many plants have various ways of warning other, nearby plants of danger, or deceiving predatory insects. Some fruits, notably bananas, emit ethylene when ripe, which speeds up the ripening of still-unripe fruit in the bunch. All of these are examples of communication, but there is no deliberate intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication
-
And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.
Hummm...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/GeneticCode21-version-2.svg/800px-GeneticCode21-version-2.svg.png)
From: Genetic code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code)
Also:
The genetic code (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/gene-expression-and-regulation/translation/a/the-genetic-code-discovery-and-properties)
DNA structure and making proteins (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3mbqhv/revision/5)
It has also been pointed out that the code (relationship between codons and proteins) is basically arbitrary, in the sense there is no biochemical reason that it had to be that way. It seems to be all but universal on Earth, so must have arisen very early, but if we find alien life that uses DNA, there is no reason to expect the same code.
I will also repeat that science has to communicate with the general public somehow and it can never be entirely accurate because to explain it all exactly, especially in a reasonably succinct way that can be used in news articles, is impossible because modern science is complicated.
It's even worse in subjects like physics, which you cannot really understand without knowing a lot of difficult mathematics. Some of the standard terms and 'explanations' that are used are often just bollocks.
-
Hummm...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/GeneticCode21-version-2.svg/800px-GeneticCode21-version-2.svg.png)
From: Genetic code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code)
Also:
The genetic code (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/gene-expression-and-regulation/translation/a/the-genetic-code-discovery-and-properties)
DNA structure and making proteins (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3mbqhv/revision/5)
It has also been pointed out that the code (relationship between codons and proteins) is basically arbitrary, in the sense there is no biochemical reason that it had to be that way. It seems to be all but universal on Earth, so must have arisen very early, but if we find alien life that uses DNA, there is no reason to expect the same code.
I will also repeat that science has to communicate with the general public somehow and it can never be entirely accurate because to explain it all exactly, especially in a reasonably succinct way that can be used in news articles, is impossible because modern science is complicated.
It's even worse in subjects like physics, which you cannot really understand without knowing a lot of difficult mathematics. Some of the standard terms and 'explanations' that are used are often just bollocks.
This isn't about science, it's about language. The use of metaphor to explsin things is fine, though as highlighted in this and countless other discussions on here fraught with the issue that when people use metaphor to explain things, people have a tendency to think it is not like in a certain way but in all ways. Hence the 'a code must have a writer' stuff.
It's similar to the problems when people use analigy, and either people then highlight differences to say the analogy doesn't work because of some difference, mistaking that the analogy is not an argument. Or they use analogy as argumeng making the reverse mistake.
Code in generalised use is a deliberate method of communication. DNA is not that.
-
No, it doesn't. There are all sorts of chemical communications going on in the bodies of organisms. To give an example at random - when certain plants are attacked by herbivores, they emit a gas which, when detected by other plants of the same variety nearby, causes their foliage to become bitter and unpleasant-tasting, too protect them from the predator. Some fruits, notably bananas, emit ethylene when ripe, which speeds up the ripening of still-unripe fruit in the bunch' Both of these are examples of chemical communication, but there is no deliberate intent.
And they are not codes because they aren't communication in the deliberate sense. You're simply reapplying the metaphor.
-
And they are not codes because they aren't communication in the deliberate sense. You're simply reapplying the metaphor.
Now you're moving the goalposts. You said "...And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities." I was answering that specific point, about communication, not about code specifically, as I made clear.
-
Just for background, here's a nice article on communication.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communication/Models-of-communication
One of the prime uses of language in its fab-u-lous flex-i-bility is categorisation. We are able to talk about groups of things that while not entirely the same share sufficient characteristics, that we can group them together usefully. One of the prime uses of the term code is that it allows us to examine what are deliberate attempts to communicate by various methods.to understand such things as efficiencies.
We also use the strengths of language to explaim things with metaphor and analogy. In this we are not grouping things together in the same way - hence why they are deliberate forms of communication, categories, in themselves.
Science, due to its complexity, and specialisation, is a good candidate for the use of both. Our tendency to extend metaphors and analogies leads to the types of arguments tgat if it's like it in one way, ot should be like it in others. Hence the code needing an individual to 'write' it.
As noted in an earlier reply, this often leads people to make fallacious arguments by analogy, so as attempted many times on here a person's consciousness is just like software and therefore can survive the destruction of the hardware/body.
Anyway - woohoo for the advance in treatment
-
Now you're moving the goalposts. You said "...And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities." I was answering that specific point, about communication, not about code specifically, as I made clear.
No, it's the same issue with metaphor. We use 'communication' there as shorthand. See the post I've just put up before this one.
-
This isn't about science, it's about language.
You seem to be talking about the scientific accuracy of the language used, otherwise, what the hell are you talking about?
The use of metaphor to explsin things is fine, though as highlighted in this and countless other discussions on here fraught with the issue that when people use metaphor to explain things, people have a tendency to think it is not like in a certain way but in all ways. Hence the 'a code must have a writer' stuff.
It's similar to the problems when people use analigy, and either people then highlight differences to say the analogy doesn't work because of some difference, mistaking that the analogy is not an argument. Or they use analogy as argumeng making the reverse mistake.
As I said, I think it's an unavoidable problem, so you have to choose your metaphor and accept that it's going to misinterpreted.
Code in generalised use is a deliberate method of communication. DNA is not that.
Actually, it has multiple senses. Taking one (non-technical) dictionary, I count eight senses (excluding the American dictionary versions), including a specific sense for DNA:
"an arrangement of genetic material in DNA (= the chemical that carries genetic information in cells)"
Also the very first sense is
"a system of words, letters, or signs used to represent a message in secret form, or a system of numbers, letters, or signals used to represent something in a shorter or more convenient form",
which is also applicable in the second case.
Cambridge dictionary - code (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/code)
-
The other aspect that makes all this even more tangled is that much of language, particularly the area of categorisation, is based around metaphor and analogy. As mentioned earlier, code is not a Platonic ideal handed down to, or discovered by, us. It, as all words, is a bucket for a bit of our struggle to break the bounds of hard solipsism.
The power to me of the metaphors of DNA being like a blueprint, a code, a recipe, or a multicoloured adsent minded giraffe called Doris is that only by a multidimensional approach to using language can we hope to only connect.
Indeed perhaps thinking about it, code works as a better word than language there, since language is usually about the written or spoken arrangements. We often use language as a metaphor, see how entwined this all is, in other areas such as music and painting, but again it seems that code would be clearer there. Language is almost a crystallised code. A code that has moved on from being something needing to be broken.
Perhaps it is also by analogy a game, a concept highlighted by Wittgenstein, as illustrative of the ineffable slipperiness of even our most solid code.
-
No, it's the same issue with metaphor. We use 'communication' there as shorthand. See the post I've just put up before this one.
DNA, as is obvious to anyone who has half a brain and hasn't bamboozled themselves with a load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks about the nature of analogy, is LITERALLY a code, and having said that, I'm saying no more about it. I've had enough.