One of the more common things we do when writing poetry or prose is to infer that objects and animals can have human attributes or qualities. So we hear about a cruel storm, a car that refuses to start or how a male bird will seek out a female so that he can pass on his genes to his offspring. The storm may cause severe damage and loss of life, but it doesn't do so because it is vindictive or cruel. The car is unable to start because there is some mechanical fault, not because it doesn't want to go somewhere. The male bird has no knowledge of genetics so it is unlikely that it would be his motivation to procreate.
We call this anthropomorphism, particularly when referring to non-human animals. When applied to non-living things like storms or cars, in the field of logic it's called a pathetic fallacy.
The use of anthropomorphisms in poetry, general prose and fiction is an acceptable, descriptive, even a desirable quality of communication. However in science and the teaching of science it often indicates that whoever uses such techniques is attempting to conceal the fact that they don't understand the principle that they are discussing.
On a recent online forum a scientist was attempting to describe the Laws of Thermodynamics to non-scientists. He referred to an experiment involving two solid metal spheres in a vacuum, close, but not touching each other and he wrote, "They each detect the temperature of the other because they detect the peak frequency and that frequency is proportional to the absolute temperature". The only word that should concern us for the moment is the use of the word detect. Now detect means, to find out, or discover the existence or presence of something. A simple solid metal sphere cannot detect anything! The use of the word detect in this example is inappropriate and misleading.
A glass thermometer contains a liquid which expands when it is heated. We can use this device to detect when the temperature rises or falls, but the liquid itself cannot detect anything. The liquid simply expands or contracts relative to its temperature. It would be misleading and scientifically incorrect to say that the liquid detects the temperature of the room and adjusts its volume accordingly.
Can non-living things be manufactured such that they appear to detect the presence of other things? Well, yes! A thermostat can control a heater in a room and can respond to a change in the temperature of that room. If the temperature is below a certain point, the thermostat switches the heater on and when the temperature is above another point the thermostat switches the heater off. In this sense however the thermostat merely appears to us as though it is detecting the room temperature.
Prior to the discovery of electricity and the invention of thermostats and electric heaters, suggesting that a thing could "detect" and control the temperature of a room would be considered as laughable. Today, it is considered acceptable and normal. However we must always be alert to the misuse of such words when we talk about any technological advancement such as computers. As Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Behind every magic trick there is a practical explanation of how the trick was performed. We know the woman was not actually cut in half, it just appears that way.
Computers do not think, they do not know. In fact they can only repeat to us those things that we have previously instructed them to repeat to us. Just as the humble thermostat was designed to respond to the temperature of a room, it doesn't find out or discover the temperature. Or, like a typewriter, a computer doesn't know anything about the words that I type; it merely displays the letters represented by the keys on the keyboard. It is up to me to press the keys in the right order to produce the words which form the sentences.
In some far distant future time, it may be appropriate to refer to some incredibly complex machine as thinking or knowing etc., but for now such terms are misleading at least in the scientific sense.
I have selected the use of the word detect because it illustrates the fine line between a scientific explanation and a simple anthropomorphism. In matters of science and technology it is important to choose your words carefully and avoid anthropomorphism. If you are listening to someone giving a scientific explanation then be sceptical when they use anthropomorphisms. If possible, ask them to rephrase their explanation because they have resorted to a pathetic fallacy.
