The Race to Significance

Oftentimes, we turn to analogies when trying to explain things that we consider complicated. I don't think there has ever been a time when I learned something and did not come up with an analogy to help myself understand it. Oftentimes also, we learn by means of translations, simplifications, and relatable examples.

I think about this sometimes, and I wonder how learning and exploration would look if we never used analogous explanations. Is it even possible to truly learn something whilst in its most pure and literal form? Concerning my own biological obsessions, I consider the steps I take every time I want to comprehend something - the numerous transfers each piece of knowledge goes through - from facts to coherent ideas to applicable understanding by analogy and at the same time, I consider the content I am studying. The behemoth content, essentially, of life. But then I think, who am I, what do I know, to be able to stand beside the magnificence of human biology and understand everything for what it truly is? No matter how small those molecules get, I am continuously left in awe and almost always, with the intrigue and the burning urgency to know more - a clear indication that I've only barely scratched the surface.

There is a certain responsibility that falls to science and anyone who studies it. I like to think of it as a race to significance. I suppose though, we need not consider it a race as in a competition against others, or time. Significance, I believe, can be defined as the amount of value assigned to something. And when more people find something significant, that item automatically possesses more value than its counterparts. Of course, this is a discussion on collective value, not to be confused with personal value (when something holds special meaning and significance to one person based upon a previous experience or highly particular belief/idea).

I guess what it comes down to is the question of whether or not analogies lessen the inherent value of a concept. If we're talking chaperonin-mediated autophagy, for example, the correction of misfolded proteins, there is a certain value in that process because of its worth to human existence and our ability to adapt and survive. But collective value, I'm not sure most people think about protein synthesis every day, or even every other day. Does that mean that it isn't valuable? Absolutely not, most of us wouldn't be alive if protein correction wasn't a thing... When we come up with analogies, though, there will always be a certain margin of error in terms of accuracy. Analogies are similar, not exact.

I've recently been thinking about this a lot and I wonder if these two types of significance are mutually exclusive - does having external collective significance lessen something's inherent significance? Because I think it is reasonable to say that in reaching a larger audience through means of analogies or simplifications, some detail and precision is sacrificed. The question then becomes, which type of significance is more valuable? We must also ask, is it even possible to retain complete inherent value and at the same time fully understand something? I am doubtful of my own ability to answer the second question with a 'yes'.

I've always turned to analogies to convey a point or to explain something in more relatable terms and I haven't really assessed the repercussions of this practice until now. I wish there was a way to calculate it - to find that margin of error and empirically determine whether or not an analogy preserves at least the better portion of the original concept's inherent value. Unfortunately though, that would be far too simple, wouldn't it. I'm not sure exactly how one would go about this but I think the decision is left in the hands of the scientist, the explorer, the learner. It's difficult to draw the line but when the amount of detail being sacrificed outweighs the collective value an analogy will gain, it's probably time to reconsider our approach.

Biology, every single atom of every single living thing, has not ceased to amaze me beyond measure but I fear that in trying to transfer this curiosity to other people, I am doing the subject a major injustice. At the same time though, I struggle to fathom even a glimpse of its true magnitude - why life is the way it is. How does one even begin to explore such an inquiry?

While, in my hands, Biology may not be given its due precision, there is a responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, to disseminate what we can fathom. And it's true, maybe sometimes analogies will take away from inherent value, but what worth is inherent value if no one actually recognizes it? We must find a balance. Maybe one day, that mathematical formula will choose for us which approach to take. Until then, you do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are.