Should metaphors be used in Science, or is it the logical fallacy of metaphor?

[27Thousand]

These are less metaphors than platitudes. They're more about the sizzle of your argument than about the bacon. They neither added nor subtracted from your case.

I assumed when you were talking about metaphors, you were talking functional metaphors, such as atoms being little solar systems.

I think these were more meant to get meaning across for my train of thought and idea of how things should be, rather than explaining facts, ex. "if we're as consistent as the sun rising".

Although one comparison "just like a record player repeats itself, so does history itself" was meant to get meaning across for a fact; I just HOPE I DIDN'T BIAS with that. I felt like I didn't need to use backup for that statement, since history repeating is considered common knowledge and specific instances of Science changing were given on the first page. However, you're right, I still didn't use it to explain a complex concept. Maybe I need to work on "functional metaphors"?

 

[27Thousand]

Putting that one physicsforums link aside and back to discussing technical aspects of Science with layman: In my mind's eye, just like they say there needs to be common words and phrases to communicate in normal everyday life, I'm wondering if it could be useful to use certain common layman phrases/metaphors to communicate while mixing the actual scientific evidence within?

Or maybe I'm just over thinking? Although you said it's impossible to be completely scientifically objective using the Layman Method, I'm just searching for more solutions of speaking the communication of best fit. Maybe I just need to become better speaking the layman art and then work from there.