<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi, everybody. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Let me just say that raising metaphoric nature of a conversation during a conversation is not an attempt to the Frog. It is always done because the scorpion senses that the frog is swimming in circles and has lost sight both of the river and the bank. I long to have a conversation about the metaphoric nature of scientific thought. I long to analyze scientific metaphors with you all. What is a good metaphor, what is a bad one. What is a strong metaphor, what is a weak one. How does this metaphor alert us to some possibilities, blind us to others. What expectations does this metaphor lead us to other than the facts that inspired it? What is the relation between “popular” books and rigorous exposition. It cannot be that such books are only “sloppy” representations of how Scientists really think. I come from a field which was guided for 40 years by the metaphor of The Selfish Gene, which was presented in a popular book which was read and cited by thousands of practitioners in the field.) <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I don’t expect (or even hope for) any response now. But I would like you to ponder for the future what the role of the scorpion is in a conversation. And here, we see, where the analysis of my metaphor might be useful. Is the scorpion ever useful to the frog? Perhaps the scorpion should be conceived as a honey-bee who serves up sugary snacks when the frog flags at mid river. I think there is an algebra of metaphoric thought and we need to make it explicit and understand it better. Is there a role for scorpions in an intellectual ecosystem?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>All the best and have a wonderful summer, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>