40 THE ORIES AND THINGS

latest occurring in the full definition of its

terms._
It follows from all this that when we use
metaphors the theory constructed with the
help of such terms has a hidden structure. And
the general analysis of M-terms shows that this
hidden structure is identical with the structure
of a Pi-theory. The simplest case would be a
metaphorical term effectively defined for the
purposes of the theory by p.c.p. 1 but fully
defined by another procedure, p.c.p.2• The use
of the metaphorical term would then involve
both p.c.p. 1 and p.c.p. 2 • P.c.p. 1 corresponds to
the factual element in a Pr -theory; p.c.p. corre­
2

sponds to the parent of the model in a P r­

theory, and the accretion of force or meaning,
the picture carried by the metaphor, to the
model of the Pi -theory. Both bridge and ana­
logy exist in the relation. between p.c.p. 1 and
p.c.p. 2 that makes the metaphor appropriate:
the analogy, because the picture or impression
or even feeling carried by the metaphor does
not include all the features of the p.c. of p.c.p. 2;
the bridge, because there must be something in
the p.c. ofp.c.p. 1 to make the use of the metaphor
apt.
A concrete example will show how this works
in practice. Almost every technical term used in
the study of current electricity has the char­
acter of an M-term, for though such expressions
as "current", "e.m.f.", "resistance", "induct­
ance", etc., are effectively defined by the aid of
p.c.p.'s confined to the apparatus and conditions
 MO D E L S T O ME C H A N I S MS 41
of experiment found in the study of current
electricity, every single one of these expressions
is not fully definable without reference to
secondary p.c.p. 's outside the scientific context.
However much such expressions might be
explicated they could not be replaced by arti­
ficially constructed e:x;pressions without destroy­
ing the conceptual basis of electro-dynamics.
They carry the picture with which everyone,
schoolboy, student, engineer and research
worker, operates in dealing with problems in
this field. You may deny that you have a model
and be as positivistic as you like, but while the
standard expressions continue to be used you
cannot but have a picture. I am inclined to
think that no new scientific term has much
cµance of gaining currency unless it is intro­
duced from a context which provides its second­
ary p.c. ' s for its use in science. For instance, in
the spate of new technical terms that have come
to be used in atomic and nuclear physics, most
if not all are M-terms in my sense. To take just
a few, "packing fraction", "nucleus", "wave",
"spin", "strangeness" all have this logical
character. And so they must have if they are to
lead us to anything. It seems to follow then that
a pure P2 theory is a myth, and that those
which look most like it are in fact, because of
their use of metaphorical terms, theories wi!h­
a complex structure, hidden it may be, but
logically equivalent to P i structures.
My discussion so far is intended to show:
( 1) that a theory will have no possibility of