BOOK REVIEW

Dimitri Liebsch and Nicola Moßner (eds): Visualisierungund Erkenntnis. Bildverstehen und Bildverwendenin Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften

Halem, Koln 2012, 350 pp, 54 figures, €32.00,ISBN: 978-3-86962-053

Tobias Schottler

Published online: 11 December 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

After a flood of images had started to appear in the sciences, a flood of publications on the

subject followed. This is to say, more and more articles, monographs and anthologies are

being published which address the epistemic functions of pictures in the sciences. Espe-

cially the anthologies on the topic can be regarded as symptomatic of two different

developments. On the one hand, they signal a growing interest in scientific visualisations.

On the other hand, they react to the complexity or confusion of the debates. At the same

time, these anthologies react to the coexisting epistemological interests insofar as they

want to give an overview of the different approaches and discussions. This is precisely one

of the major merits of the companion Visualisation and Knowledge (Visualisierung und

Erkenntnis). Above all, the book is an excellent guide to the topic: It offers an overview of

the different kinds of visualisations and their usages on the one hand and of the corre-

sponding theoretical discussions on the other. The articles are compiled according to these

two topics: the papers in the first section—entitled understanding pictures (Bildverste-

hen)—deal with the theoretical questions und problems related to scientific visualisations

(1), while the articles in the second section—entitled using pictures (Bildverwenden)—

outline the use of visualisations in different disciplines, such as astronomy, biology and so

on (2). Despite the generally good quality of the papers, there are some outliers which I am

going to highlight in discussing the book as a whole (3).

(1) Understanding Pictures: The articles in the first section do not only give an over-

view of some important issues in the theoretical discussions, but also of different meth-

odological approaches. All articles discuss scientific visualisations in the light of

philosophy or history of science in a broad sense (especially Moßner). Most of them

combine this perspective with approaches or methods from other disciplines, such as

picture theory (Sachs-Hombach, Scholz), media theory (Heßler, Nohr), logic (Bagusche),

discourse analysis (Nohr) or conceptual history and Blumenberg’s metaphorology

(Liebsch).

T. Schottler (&)Institut fur Philosophie I, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germanye-mail: tobias.schoettler@rub.de

123

J Gen Philos Sci (2013) 44:401–404DOI 10.1007/s10838-013-9237-1

Klaus Sachs-Hombach’s article is a well-chosen entry point for this section insofar as he

maps the different functions of visualisations in scientific contexts. Particularly, he dis-

tinguishes between the use of pictures as an empirical foundation, their use in scientific

justifications, their heuristic value in the context of discovery and their use in communi-

cating research results. Making recourse to epistemology and communication theory, he

discusses some of the problems these ways of use are confronted with.

We can apply Sachs-Hombach’s map in order to structure the articles in this section,

which results in four categories, namely (a) the use as empirical foundation, (b) the use in

scientific justification, (c) in the context of discovery or (d) in communicating research

results.

(a) The use of visualisations as empirical foundation is mainly discussed in the articles

by Nicola Moßner and Martin Lemke, Tobias Breidenmoser, Manfred Drack and Fynn Ole

Engler. While Martin Lemke and his co-authors are primarily concerned with a classifi-

cation of picture types according to their accuracy and possible disturbances, Moßner

reflects on visualisations with regard to the distinction between scientific realism and anti-

realism.

(b) The possibilities and limits of visualisations in scientific justifications are discussed

by Martina Heßler and Stefan Bagusche in their respective articles. Although both

approaches could be labelled as ‘picture logic’, their modi operandi are antithetical. While

Heßler uses pictures as a starting point, proceeding from the assumption of their specific

potentialities, Bagusche analyses the possibilities of diagrammatic logics proceeding from

linguistic logics as the ideal case of argumentation. While Heßler emphasises the specific

advantages of pictures in the context of justifications, Bagusche highlights the disadvan-

tages or limits of diagrammatic logics compared to the possibilities of linguistic logics. To

sum up, Heßler argues against the widespread scepticism directed towards pictures as

media of knowledge, whereas Bagusche argues in favour of this scepticism and for the

superiority of linguistic logics.

(c) Concerning the use of pictures in the context of discovery, Sachs-Hombach stresses

the use of pictures as analogical models (p. 35). Dimitri Liebsch goes one step further by

analysing the use of the concept of ‘picture’ as a model for ontological, theological and

psychological concepts. Oliver Scholz is interested in the cognitive value of pictures

themselves (as distinct from the concept of ‘picture’). His analysis is based on a general

characterization of pictures and their features which is inspired by Nelson Goodman and

the later Wittgenstein. Following Wittgenstein’s pragmatic philosophy of language, Scholz

concludes his article suggesting to write the history of scientific pictures as a history of

picture games (p. 55).

(d) The role of pictures in communicating scientific research is discussed by Rolf Nohr.

In order to analyse the visual strategies employed in popular sciences (for example Fritz

Kahn’s ‘Man as Industrial Palace’), he applies Link’s concept of interdiscourse to pictures.

(2) Using Pictures: The second section gives a well-conceived overview of the practice

of scientific visualisations in different sciences and consequently about the subject area of

the theoretical discussions. Thorsten Raztka gives a short account of astronomical obser-

vations by telescopes; Peter Hucklenbroich explains the technical background of the

techniques of neuro-imaging; Dieter Weiss discusses the different techniques of micros-

copy and their role within cytological research.

These three articles, with their focus on specific measuring methods, are framed by two

contributions dealing with the role of visualisations in informatics and the use of pictures in

scientific didactics respectively. Jorg Schirra dwells on the computer-based use of visu-

alisations and especially their technical background. The article by Andreas Muller, Jochen

402 T. Schottler

123

Kuhn, Alwine Lenzner and Wolfgang Schnotz discusses the value of pictures in didactical

contexts. The authors’ main interest is focused on the question whether the use of ‘dec-

orative pictures’ (which they distinguish from ‘instructional pictures’) has positive effects

on the learning process and motivation of pupils. Basing their findings on empirical

research, they come to the conclusion that merely decorative pictures have no significant

positive effect. The only positive effects could be observed in the case of decorative

pictures with embedded data. However, given the distinction they make between decora-

tive and instructive pictures as a clear-cut dichotomy, the status of decorative pictures with

embedded data is unclear. Does it represent a third type, or a combination of the two parts

of the dichotomy? In both cases, the idea of a dichotomy would have to be discarded.

Apart from minor conceptual confusions such as this one, the articles in this section

complement each other in an outstanding way. They provide a proper overview on

important uses of scientific visualisations and their technical backgrounds. It would have

been desirable to further include articles about other visualisation techniques such as

photography or x-ray imagery. But obviously it cannot be expected that every single

technique is addressed within the framework of one book. As Nicola Moßner mentions in

the volume’s introduction, the methods of measuring discussed in the book range from the

level of macrocosm over humans and their brains to the level of microcosm (p. 26).

Certainly the telescope, the procedures of neuro-imaging and the microscope are repre-

sentative of observations of these ‘parts’ of the world.

(3) The book as a whole: Not only do the articles in the second section complement each

other, but the two sections of the volume are also interlinked. On the one hand, the articles

in the second section describe the subject area analysed by the articles in the first section.

On the other hand, the theoretical discussions (mainly addressed in the first section)

expound the questions and perspectives regarding the subject area. Against this back-

ground, it is not surprising that some authors in the second section reflect on their subject

area in the light of philosophy of science. Particularly Hucklenbroich and Weiss combine

their overview with epistemological reflections on the potentials and limitations of specific

techniques and criticize some overinterpretations. The main plug in Hucklenbroich’s

article is his critique of the assumption that neuro-imaging enables us to read somebody’s

mind. Weiss discusses the assumption of the microtrabecular structure of the cytoplasm

which was based on an overinterpretation of pictures gained by electron microscopy (p.

308).

Altogether the book gives a much-wanted overview of scientific visualisations and their

theoretical discussion. Against the background of the generally high quality of the articles

and the very good compilation, we can identify some outliers—both negative and positive.

On the side of the negative outliers, we have the paper about the classification of scientific

representations (Klassifikation wissenschaftlicher Darstellungen) by Lemke and his co-

authors. Since it doesn’t equal the quality of the other articles, it makes the other articles

shine all the brighter in comparison. This is definitely true for the articles of the two

editors: Dimitri Liebsch’s contribution about figurative pictures (Uneigentliche Bilder: Zur

(historischen) Bildsemantik und -metaphorik and Nicola Moßner’s article about the reality

of scientific images (Die Realitat wissenschaftlicher Bilder).

Liebsch’s article excels regarding both its topic and the method used. Applying methods

from conceptual history and Blumenberg’s metaphorology, Liebsch sets aside the role of

individual pictures in the sciences and investigates their role as a medium and model in

ontological, theological and psychological discussions. He exemplifies his approach by

analysing the role of pictures in Plato’s ontology, in the theological iconoclasm according

to John of Damascus, the psychological discussions about mental pictures according to

Visualisierung und Erkenntnis 403

123

Aristotle, Giordano Bruno, Descartes, as well as recent discussions in the philosophy of

mind. His journey through the centuries and disciplines is guided by the assumption that

the evolution of media influences the theoretical concepts insofar as the emergence of new

kinds of pictures provokes new concepts of pictures which are then used as analogical

models (p. 73). With his analysis, he introduces perspectives and topics into the philosophy

of science which were formerly limited to the context of visual studies,1 while at the same

time expanding the corresponding discussions in the field of visual studies. Whereas in the

context of visual studies pictures are mostly investigated as a model of perception theories,

Liebsch discusses them with respect to their use in ontology and theology as well as to the

mental imagery debate.

Nicola Moßner discusses some tacit ontological assumptions underlying the discussion

of referents of visualisation strategies. In particular, she criticizes the wide-spread anti-

realistic assumption that the visualisations’ referents are constructed by the respective

visualisation techniques. In contrast to this, she supports a realistic position according to

which the visualisation strategies depict real ontological entities. Following Moßner, the

major challenge for a realistic interpretation of scientific visualisations is the theory-

ladenness thesis because both, the discovery of relevant data as well as the construction of

the relevant instruments of observation are guided by theories. It would be a case of

circular reasoning if we were to justify theories by an observation which rests on this very

theory. Moßner resolves this problem by applying Suhm’s distinction between theory-

relativity and theory-dependency (cf. Suhm 2005, pp. 297f.). The observations are indeed

theory-relative insofar as the observations and the construction of the instruments are

guided by theories. And yet they are not theory-dependent if the observation does not

presuppose the tested theory. Even though I am sceptical concerning some of the conse-

quences and implications of her position, the value of her efforts to highlight some

problems which result from the tacit presuppositions underlying the discussion is beyond

all question.

To sum up, this book gives an outstanding overview of the topic and the different

methodological approaches. Thus, it can very well serve as a suitable introduction for

students. At the same time, the book also has something in store for scholars who are more

familiar with the issues raised, such as the papers by the two editors who highlight topics

that are usually ignored in this area of research.

References

Crary, J. (1990). Techniques of the observer: On vision and modernity in the nineteenth century. Cambridge,Mass: MIT Press.

Suhm, C. (2005). Wissenschaftlicher Realismus: Eine Studie zur Realismus-Antirealismus-Debatte in derneueren Wissenschaftstheorie. Berlin: De Gruyter.

1 This perspective can be traced back to Crary (1990).

404 T. Schottler

123