Why Images?

Megan Delehanty1
1Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Tóm tắt

Given that many imaging technologies in biology and medicine are non-optical and generate data that is essentially numerical, it is a striking feature of these technologies that the data generated using them are most frequently displayed in the form of semi-naturalistic, photograph-like images. In this paper, I claim that three factors underlie this: (1) historical preferences, (2) the rhetorical power of images, and (3) the cognitive accessibility of data presented in the form of images. The third of these can be argued to provide an epistemic advantage to images, but I will further argue that this is often misleading and that images can in many cases be less informative than the corresponding mathematical data.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abraham, T. (2003). From theory to data: Representing neurons in the 1940’s. Journal of the History of Biology, 415–426.

Ambrose, J. 1973. Computerized transverse axial tomography scanning (tomography): Part 2. Clinical application. British Journal of Radiology 46: 1023–1047.

Berrill, N.J. 1984. The pearls of wisdom: An exposition. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 28(1): 1–16.

Breidbach, O. 2002. Representation of the Microcosm—The claim for objectivity in 19th century scientific microphotography. Journal of the History of Biology 35: 221–250.

Cartwright, L. 1995. Screening the body: Tracing medicine’s visual culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Crick, F. 1994. The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Daston, L., and P. Galison. 1992. The image of objectivity. Representations 40: 81–128.

Dumit, J. 2004. Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Elkins, J. 1999. Pictures of the body: Pain and metamorphosis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Friston, K., C. Chu, J. Mourão-Miranda, O. Hulme, G. Rees, W. Penny, and J. Ashburner. 2008. Bayesian decoding of brain images. Neuroimage 38: 181–205.

Greene, M.T. 2005. Seeing clearly is not necessarily believing. Nature 435: 143.

Hanson, N.R. 1965. Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haxby, J.V., et al. 2001. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral cerebral cortex. Science 293: 2425–2430.

Haynes, J.-D., and G. Rees. 2005. Predicting the orientation of invisible stimuli from activity in human primary visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience 8: 1–6.

Haynes, J.-D., et al. 2007. Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Current Biology 17: 323–328.

Hearst, J.E. 1990. Microscopy: ‘Seeing is Believing’. Nature 347(6290): 230.

Herschman, H.R., D.C. MacLaren, M. Iyer, et al. 2000. Seeing is believing: Non-invasive, quantitative and repetitive imaging of reporter gene expression in living animals using positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience Research 59(6): 699–705.

Jones, C.A., and P. Galison (eds.). 1988. Picturing science, producing art. New York: Routledge.

Kamitani, Y., and F. Tong. 2005. Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 8: 679–685.

Keller, E.F. 2002. Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kevles, B.H. 1996. Medical imaging in the twentieth century. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kriegeskorte, N., et al. 2008. Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron 60(6): 1126–1141.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd, Enlarged ed ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lynch, M., and S. Woolgar (eds.). 1990. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Monteith, G.R. 2000. Seeing is believing: Recent trends in the measurement of Ca2 in subcellular domains and intracellular organelles. Immunology and Cell Biology 78(4): 403–407.

Mur, M., et al. 2009. Revealing representational content with pattern-information Fmri—an introductory guide. SCAN 4: 101–109.

Murphy, B. (1996). Color scales: dialing a defect. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from the World Wide Web: www.nucmed.buffalo.edu/nrlgy1.htm.

Orr-Weaver, T.L. 1995. Meiosis in Drosophila: Seeing is believing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92(23): 10443–10449.

Ottino, J.A. 2003. Is a picture worth 1, 000 words? Nature 421: 474–476.

Pearson, H. 2005. CSI: Cell biology. Nature 434: 952–953.

Pereira, F., et al. 2009. Machine learning classifiers and fMRI: A tutorial overview. NeuroImage 45: S199–S209.

Ramsey, J., C. Hanson, S. Hanson, R. Halchenko, R. Poldrack, and C. Glymour. 2010. Six problems for causal inference from fMRI. Neuroimage 49: 1545–1548.

Rasmussen, N. 1997. Picture control: The electron microscope and the transformation of biology in America, 1940–1960. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Stafford, B.M. 1991. Body criticism: Imaging the unseen in Enlightenment art and medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stafford, B.M. 1994. Artful science: Enlightenment entertainment and the eclipse of visual education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stafford, B.M. 1996. Good looking: Essays on the virtues of images. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Supplee, C., and M. Bradford. 2004. 2004 Visualization challenge. Science 305: 1903.

Tufte, E.R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Tufte, E.R. 1997. Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Wimsatt, W.C. 1991. Taming the dimensions—Visualizations in science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science 1990: 111–135.