In the paper entitled “Scientific Explanation and Metaphor” Jerzy Kmita divided all metaphors on reporting and explicative ones. He assumed that the explicative metaphors could play a cognitive function in science, and also characterized them according to Max Black’s interactive theory of metaphor. The main purpose of my paper is to analyse Kmita’s explicative conception of metaphor in the view of Lakoff & Johnson’s cognitive theory of metaphor. I attempt to show that metaphors play an important role in a process of making knowledge, especially in a conceptualization of domain being studied. In spite of an interactive account of metaphor I claim that making use of a metaphor is a process, which proceeds only in the one direction. In the last section of the paper I briefly analyse a few examples of metaphors used in natural sciences.
In September 1999 "Nature" magazine announced that atomic orbitals were di-rectly observed. Opposing it, Eric Scerri, editor-in-chief of "Foundations of Chemistry", claimed that what could be observed in the experiment was electron density, not orbitals. The main purpose of this paper is to consider philosophical and methodological aspects of the above controversy. Especially, the problems of direct observability and reality of theoretical entities are taken under detailed discussion. From the point of view of quantum mechanics there are not any reasons to believe that orbitals exist. However, realistically treated orbitals are very effective tools in the laboratory practice of chemistry.
Along with the formulation by Max Black the interactive theory of metaphor, the philosophers of science began to analyze the role of metaphors in scientific cognition. It has been shown that metaphors can play different functions in all stages of the creation of scientific knowledge. In this paper I focus on the analysis of the role of metaphors in the account of empirical data and their impact on the constitution of scientific research programmes. I present views on this issue formulated by Max Black, Mary Hesse, Richard Boyd, Thomas Kuhn, Daniela Bailer- Jones, and especially by John Styles, who analyzed in detail the role that empirically-grounded metaphors play in science. In the last paragraph of the paper, I consider the impact of metaphors on the constitution of the research programme of Bohr's atomic structure in the context of the Imre Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes.
PL
Wraz ze sformułowaniem przez Maxa Blacka interakcyjnej koncepcji metafory zaczęto w filozofii nauki analizować rolę metafor w poznaniu naukowym. Wykazano, że metafory mogą pełnić różne funkcje we wszystkich stadiach tworzenia wiedzy naukowej. W artykule koncentruję się na analizie roli metafor w ujmowaniu danych empirycznych i ich wpływie na konstytuowanie się naukowych programów badawczych. Przedstawiam poglądy na tę kwestię sformułowane przez Maxa Blacka, Mary Hesse, Richarda Boyda, Thomasa Kuhna, Danielę Bailer-Jones, a zwłaszcza przez Johna Stylesa, który szczegółowo analizował rolę, jaką w nauce odgrywają empirycznie ugruntowane metafory. Na zakończenie rozważam wpływ metafor na konstytuowanie się programu badawczego budowy atomu Bohra w kontekście metodologii naukowych programów badawczych Imre Lakatosa.