Can a Figure discard something?

Question

I have been criticized for the following usage of to discard:

Figure 7 shows [...]. It is striking to observe that [surprising fact]. However, [tempering the previous fact]. Thus, Figure 7 clearly discards the possibility that [impossible hypothesis].

The comment is "A figure does not discard, it can only visualise something".

It would be easy to reformulate (e.g. "From these observations, we can clearly discard"), but I wonder if this particular usage is correct or not, and if it sounds odd. In the last sentence, I understand "Figure 7" as a shortcut or metonymy of the whole associated reasoning.

Andrew Leach · Accepted Answer

It's clear that a simple diagram can't discard anything. Discard is a verb with a positive action: that of throwing something away.

A figure or diagram can have an effect, rather than a real action. It can cause you to do something:

Figure 7 clearly causes us to discard the possibility...

Or it might do something itself which doesn't have a real action, merely an effect:

Figure 7 clearly invalidates the possibility...

or you might possibly use show as that can be metaphorical — that is, if a diagram shows something it "causes us to see":

Figure 7 shows [impossible hypothesis] to be impossible.

Discard is not [yet!] metaphorical; although English does change, this particular verb still connotes the real action of disposing of something. I believe it's unlikely that discard will change its usage: OED shows it in use since 1578 and it's always connoted a positive action (including displace or banish).

Conrado · Answer

While it is true that discard is a verb with positive action, it can be argued that a figure can commit the act.
In philosophy and language, a speech act is information given by a speaker or writer that not only expresses ideas, but performs an action. A Wikipedia article on the subject attributes Speech-Act theory to Wittgenstein's philosophical theories.
It is immediately clear that speech act theory talks about speech and writing, but a figure may also transmit information, and, by extension, perform actions; an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy holds that "speech acts do not essentially involve language":

Accordingly, we may now say that speech acts are cases of speaker meaning that can (but need not) be performed by speaker meaning that one is doing so. This conception still counts resigning, promising, asserting and asking as speech acts, while ruling out convincing, insulting and growing six inches. It has the further virtue of ruling out the case of whispering, which one can do without speaker meaning anything and so is no speech act (although of course some speech acts may be performed at the level of a whisper). What is more, speech acts do not essentially involve language: bidding, promising, resigning and challenging are all acts that can be done without words. Our characterization of speech acts captures this fact in emphasizing speaker meaning rather than the uttering of any words.

A common example of this phenomenon "in the wild" is attributing speech to a text, for example: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them", or "The book makes some extravagant claims that have been put into question." In these examples, a promise is attributed to the Scriptures, and "making extravagant claims" to a book.
In this same sense, a figure can be said to discard an argument.

Can a Figure discard something?

2 Answers

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question