I am skeptical of there being legitimate reasons for talking in "symbolic speak" about the real world. I think one reason people do this is so they can cause in listeners emotional reactions that are appropriate for their "myth" but not appropriate for what's actually true. This is a peculiar way of misleading people, often including one's self.
Another reason is so that people can talk about things without having to take definite stances on what they mean. This ambiguity often just amounts to merely refusing to choose between several plausible truth conditions for their statements, but there's something emotionally attractive about that to some people. This also seems not legitimate...
A reason that is legitimate is to use a metaphor to help someone grasp something by pointing out similarities to things they are already familiar with. This is sometimes done in science education. But the metaphors are discarded as misleading simplifications once understanding progresses.
Of course, a totally valid reason for talking in story is to entertain, as we do in fiction. But in that context everyone knows we are just engaged in entertainment and not talking about the real world."
There are many possible maps that describe the same territory. Trying to switch people to use a different map could be a good thing, or it could be a bad thing. (A person who likes the new map might describe it as "giving them fresh insights", a person who dislikes it might describe it as "manipulating them".)
Is the scientific map always better? Well, sometimes it is not available. And sometimes it is too complex. In situations where science provides a clear and simple answer, I guess following it is very likely to be the right answer. But that is not alwa... (read more)
I'll note that when people are doing something in near mode, like running a restaurant, they rarely feel it necessary engage in lofty symbolism. You instead get this sort of thing much more often in internet political discussions.
11Vladimir_Nesov
There is water, H2O, drinking water, liquid, flood. Meanings can abstract away some details of a concrete thing from the real world, or add connotations that specialize it into a particular role. This is very useful in clear communication. The problem is sloppy or sneaky equivocation between different meanings, not the content of meanings getting to involve emotions, connotations, things not found in the real world, or combining them with concrete real world things into compound meanings.