Model Building or "Mapping" Reality

In a book titled Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (1992) Henry H. Bauer
offered three metaphors to sum up the activities of scientists.
What three metaphors did Bauer use to describe the activities of scientists?
The puzzle :scientists are largely motivated by puzzle solving. They want to explain
things that are strange or unexplained. They gain satisfaction from achieving new
insights into how things work.
The filter: scientists start with lots of different ideas, particularly in frontier areas where
there are puzzles to be solved. Many ideas are eventually disproved. Scientists try to
filter out misleading and false claims.
The map: scientific theories are like maps. They preserve information about selected
portions of reality. Like maps, they are schematic (incomplete or "skeletal") but extremely
useful in particular situations.

The map metaphor is potentially very deep. It can be used to draw attention to
several important facts about scientific theories:

Not even the best map is complete. Our theories never capture the
full complexity of any system in the universe, nor are they intended to.
No model contains as much detail as the system being modeled.
Moral: You can expect a theory to be accurate but you cannot expect it to be complete .
How is the map metaphor instructive?
Maps come in specialized varieties that are superior for different purposes. If you need
to know about land elevations, you use a topographical map. If you need to travel on a
highway system, you use a road map. If you need to predict the weather, you use a
weather map. Even if they refer to the same area of land, these maps look different
because they are designed to highlight different sorts of information. Similarly, there are
many different scientific theories in psychology. No one theory covers all situations. But
this does not mean all maps are equal. Some are definitely superior for particular
purposes. You would not want to drive across the country using a weather map instead
of a road map.
Moral: there might be many different theories about a subject, all useful at different times, but
one might be clearly superior for a particular task.
All different maps should be consistent with each other, and none should contradict
each other. There should be nothing in a topographical map (showing land elevations)
that contradicts what you see in a road map or a weather map. Similarly, nothing you
learn in physics should contradict what you learn in psychology, or biology, or chemistry,
or geology. Scientific theories describe different aspects of the same reality. The maps
should fit together and be mutually consistent, while emphasizing different types of
information

Moral: there is room for many different scientific theories, but none should contradict any of the
others.
When errors occur in maps, they can be corrected by gathering data. Suppose you
found that two maps of the same territory did contradict each other. This can happen
with road maps, not only because of accidental errors, but also because mapmakers
sometimes deliberately insert a non-existent road into a map so they can tell if another
company has copied their map and infringed upon their copyright. (We found some
non-existent roads in a map of our town, shown here.) If two maps disagree, then one
of them must be wrong. You can resolve the issue by gathering data. For example, you
could go to the site of the mystery roads and see if they are really there. The same is
true of scientific theories.
Non-existent roads
Moral: when theories contradict each other, the difference can be resolved by gathering
evidence.
Even the best maps must be continually updated and corrected.
Scientific theories in an area of lively research never stand still for
long. One scientist estimated that the average lifespan of a modern
scientific theory in the life sciences (such as biology, genetics, or
neuroscience) is about three years. After that, there are new findings or details to be added or
major changes to be made. This might sound discouraging if you just worked for years to
publish a scientific paper, but it is the sign of an active and developing science. If you can use a
10-year-old map to navigate around a city, the city must not be growing. If theories stay the
same for many years, it may indicate a stagnant area of research. If theories change, that
indicates people are finding out new things.
Moral: Even good theories become obsolete and outdated. Scientists continually look for new
and more accurate information.
How is science unique among systems of thought?
This last point relates to a unique characteristic of science, one which sets it apart from all the
other ideologies and belief systems in the world. It tries to change itself. Most idea systems are
aimed at preserving a particular way of looking at things. Science is not devoted to any
particular point of view, although individual scientists might be. Science as an institution aims at
accuracy, not dogma (ideas which cannot be challenged). If new research forces a reexamination of old ideas, that is considered a plus, not a minus. In this sense, science is a selfcorrecting system. It has numerous ways of testing its own ideas and assumptions, changing
them if necessary.