# Hostility towards science in the arts



## Polednice

Why do you think it exists?

I think it's quite similar to philosophers and religionists who jump to shout "scientism!" at every opportunity, making sure everyone knows that it's only one way of knowing (because, of course, divine revelation is an equally valid foundation for making assertions about the mechanics of the universe...).

We do have to be careful not to think that science is the answer to everything, or that reductionist approaches - while certainly possible in all areas - will give us meaningful or useful answers in all areas. Yet, in my experience reading science books and through interacting with scientists, I have come across _no one_ who thinks like that. I very much think that people try to pull science down _not_ because people are applying it too broadly, but because they want some metaphysical or non-rational system to be elevated alongside it. It's quite pathetic.

Of course, we still have to be critical of scientific study of the arts (and bear in mind that that's what scientists want! Science progresses through helpful critique), and, on the flip-side, I have witnessed that many consumers of science writing on the arts take the claims made at face value, simply because it's Science, without thinking skeptically. For example, take scientist Jonah Lehrer's recent book, _Imagine_, on the subject of the neuroscience of creativity. It has met with wide acclaim and popularity, no doubt because it democratises creative skill by suggesting that our current neuroscientific understanding points to ways that readers can augment their creative output. And yet, any semi-science-literate reader (such as myself), or indeed more qualified reviewers of the work, have pointed out that its definitions of creativity are broad and muddled, and the claims it makes are far, far too over-reaching and drenched in self-help rhetoric.

There's a happy medium to be found somewhere in all of this, but I think that our critical eye doesn't need to be applied with _antagonism_. When a scientist comes out with a research article, they're not making claims to having discovered some grand answer that explains everything. They're providing their own small contribution to a huge conversation - a conversation you might reasonably be a part of if you're willing to voice your critical ideas in a manner that suggests you hope research is improved next time, rather than in a way that makes it seem as though you think science has no place whatsoever in the arts.

If that's what you believe, for whatever reasons - perhaps because you think science is just too limited, or that, rational though its conclusions may be, its results are without consequence, or maybe even that the arts are inhabited by metaphysical fairies that are untouchable by science - why bother reading the scientific literature and bitching about it? Just don't bother if you don't like it, and leave it to the rest of the people who do find it interesting and thought-provoking. Constantly finding some opportunity to say, "I fundamentally dislike your framework and think your methods of inquiry are useless" is a subjective assessment not dissimilar to, "your taste in Beethoven is crap."


----------



## PetrB

1.) No one likes their beloved clinically dissected.

1.) The nature of science is to exclude anything not 95% verifiable as certain: Art is all about intuition and uncertainty, even when the final product has concrete forms, and a set of precepts about the medium itself. -- there is no accounting for the intuitive, seeming arbitrary choices many a composer works with, and within, on a regular basis.

Oil and water, basically. What is parsed out is from that scientific quarter of the 'sensibility of science.' Whatever data comes therefrom often seems of little or no real use to musicians - or artists in general.

Artists knew of color theory, musicians of music theory, long before scientists did more clinical study, analysis, and then attached 'numbers' to those crafts.

I wonder if the scientific community has a proclivity to 'nail down' something which really cannot be determined - working with something fascinatingly attractive, but leaving out all elements of their research that are the elements which make it fascinatingly attractive, because those elements are not 'workable' within the requirements of scientific study or research.

That is my resistance, the not nameable (in concrete terms) being the prime thrust of the scientific search. What comes out seems completely irrelevant to the art or the understanding of it.

Admittedly, science in relation to the arts is patently of no interest to me. 

From your point of interest, I believe the scientific sensibility is the primary and deepest/strongest present impulse, "your interior core," if you will, and the interest in the arts far secondary to it, i.e. a more "exterior" part of your being. There are many who are deeply attracted to the arts for whom it is still "outside of them."


----------



## Polednice

Some of your comments are indicative of an unfortunate trend in thinking that scientific conclusions ought to have some utility. That's no doubt part of the reason why the creativity book I mentioned was written as glorified self-help - because people want something out of it. But to me and many others, it's not about utility, and it doesn't matter that artists and musicians don't find the conclusions useful. To me, the scientific study of the arts is an essentially _anthropological_ endeavour, but one that uses 21st Century tools and rigorous methodology. I'm only looking to know _why_ humans are the way they are, not _how_ to write the next best symphony.

For reference, my point of interest is that science and the arts are of equal importance to me - neither one is interior nor exterior to my being. First and foremost, I consider myself a writer. My prime activity is writing poetry and short stories, as well as non-fiction blogging. Unsurprisingly, the non-fiction I share regards scientific research, because, though I do consider myself a "creator" more than anything else, my _mindset_ is fundamentally a methodical, scientific one. I adore science because of the way it works, and it speaks to my artistic temperament.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Just like pure mathematics vs. applied mathematics. Applied mathematics is dull because it is concerned with physics and the other lesser sciences, while pure mathematics is amazing because it is concerned with eternal artistic beauty.

I don't entirely agree with the above, but I do feel that a certain aesthetic element is taken away from these arts once they're lowered to the level of practical science. I guess it's that mystical feeling of abstractness and generality that makes them so appealing, as opposed to the scientific ideas that often become too bogged down in concreteness and usefulness.

Of course, I know this is not a very good comparison since it usually only takes 50 years for pure mathematics to be applied to some science in some way or another, and this is not true for the other arts as far as I know, but it does make the reasons clearer: that the abstract and the mystical is more beautiful than the concrete and the practical.


----------



## Stargazer

As someone with an extensive background in science/engineering, I find it hard to understand why many people have such an antagonistic view towards it. I think that much of it comes from the fact that most people simply don't understand science or the scientific process. I also think that many distrust science when it contrasts with their personal beliefs or opinions. Science is the reason we are typing these messages on the internet right now, and why you are able to store food for weeks without it going bad...that doesn't seem so bad to me!

Science exists to provide an explanation for the observations we make in the world, and in many cases to use those observations for our own benefit. For example, people noticed for thousands of years that when you drop an apple, it falls...science explains why it falls, how fast it falls, and how much force is required to keep it from falling, and so on. In modern-day science most investigations focus on much more complex or abstract systems, but the principle is still largely the same. It is simply a systematic and structured way to record observations of the world around us, and attempt to explain the reasoning behind those observations.



> I have witnessed that many consumers of science writing on the arts take the claims made at face value


And that's what the peer-review process is for, to maintain the integrity of scientific publications and make sure that when something is published/reviewed, it is well worth the read! That way, any nut with a computer can't just write a scientific paper and pass it off as legitimate. Sure it isn't perfect, but it does a pretty darn good job of weeding out the lower quality stuff.


----------



## brianwalker

Why is science so hostile towards philosophy?
Why is science so hostile towards religion? 
Why is science so hostile towards the sociology of science? 
Why is science so hostile towards the criticism of pseudo-science? 
Why is science so hostile towards non-scientific explanations of the things it purportedly explains?

The track record on the scientific study of the arts isn't great. The social "sciences" don't have a great track record either.

The tensions in Wagner may provide the clue. Jonah Lehrer, neuroscientist and writer, says our response to music remains "pretty mysterious - we feel so intently, but we don't know why"

http://www.bryanappleyard.com/wagner-madness/

And yet, any semi-science-literate reader (such as myself), or indeed more qualified reviewers of the work, have pointed out that its definitions of creativity are broad and muddled, and the claims it makes are far, far too over-reaching and drenched in self-help rhetoric.

The problem is that "real science" is abused to confer authority on false science e.g. the social sciences, evolutionary biology, M-theory, and the likes. You know this but most people don't. When Hawking comes out with a book that says the problems of cosmology are solved by science most people don't have the intellectual resources to question these kind of claims made by a scientist with an impeccable pedigree and most people aren't keen on reading numerous reviews of an arcane book to get a balanced perspective - pop science books skews the status of science in our culture to the point of idolatry.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1uhVZ8ggp

"The same might apply to M-theory, but unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys *no observational support whatever.*" (But the public doesn't know that. They don't even know 2% of the math involved to "judge" M-theory and thus are dependent on physicists like Penrose to point this out.)

You never hear Humanities types calling for an abolition of various scientific research programs, however risible some of them may be , but cuts from the Humanities are demanded from science types on a daily basis.

The problem with the scientific analysis of art is that it's not productive in any way whatsoever with regards to great art; the true test of scientific knowledge is application, and we've not reached one inch closer to a scientific creation of great art i.e. knowledge of the true "principles" guiding great art and making great art along those lines - the test of our knowledge of physics was the production of atomic bombs and nuclear energy and other experiments. Insofar as there is no "experiment" that can delineate "progress" with regards to the scientific analysis of the arts the only upshot of it is rearm the materialist/empiricist worldview with more tools to bludgeon its opponents.

When a scientist comes out with a research article, they're not making claims to having discovered some grand answer that explains everything. They're providing their own small contribution to a huge conversation - a conversation you might reasonably be a part of if you're willing to voice your critical ideas in a manner that suggests you hope research is improved next time, rather than in a way that makes it seem as though you think science has no place whatsoever in the arts.

I. No but it does claim that it does explain something. 
II. Conversation? Why can't I critique the nature of the research program and the inherent limitations of the scope of the method? Oh right because that would threaten the method which is apriori considered to be able to produce the right results in the end and not a potential dead end.

To me, the scientific study of the arts is an essentially anthropological endeavour, but one that uses 21st Century tools and rigorous methodology. 
That assumes already that the anthropological investigation of can hold all the answers and that *the best anthropological explanation at the moment * must be *the most accurate representation of man at the moment* and that more research will yield the *one true picture of man *eventually. There are philosophical critiques of anthropology and its limitations but those are dismissed because it's already assumed beforehand that the answer and all possible answers must necessarily be anthropological and that the right answer are anthropological answers, which is in no way the consensus in meta-anthropology i.e. philosophy.

The retort from anthropologists is that their critics don't have a rival picture of man but this presupposes that there must be a picture of man and that the only alternative to the current results of anthropology is an alternative anthropology, an anthropology with different results and results that fit within the theoretical framework of anthropology, but this presupposes that the answer must be anthropological in the first place, which is what's being disputed.

For it's obviously that anthropology cannot be experimentally verified in *the same essential way* that physics has its theories verified or chemistry has its theories verified (or falsified even).



Stargazer said:


> As someone with an extensive background in science/engineering, I find it hard to understand why many people have such an antagonistic view towards it.


Because pop science often makes ridiculous arrogant wrongheaded claims. 



> I think that much of it comes from the fact that most people simply don't understand science or the scientific process.


I don't think scientists know that much about the revolutionary scientific process, just normal science.

Oh and if you don't know what I'm referring to then you don't understand science.



> I also think that many distrust science when it contrasts with their personal beliefs or opinions.


What is this monolithic "science" you speak of?



> Science is the reason we are typing these messages on the internet right now, and why you are able to store food for weeks without it going bad...that doesn't seem so bad to me!


Engineering is the reason we can type out these messages. And capitalism. And luck.



> Science exists to provide an explanation for the observations we make in the world, and in many cases to use those observations for our own benefit. For example, people noticed for thousands of years that when you drop an apple, it falls...science explains* why it falls,* how fast it falls, and how much force is required to keep it from falling, and so on.


Uh no it doesn't (explain *why *it falls). Our theory of gravity is quite paltry at this moment. It just explains the "*how* it falls" *more accurately*. People have know that things fall forever.

This is exactly the problem of science nerds. They don't know science very well.



> In modern-day science most investigations focus on much more complex or abstract systems, but the principle is still largely the same.


And that's where it fails.



> It is simply a systematic and structured way to record observations of the world around us, and attempt to explain the reasoning behind those observations.


And some of those "reasons" are laughably bad.


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> I don't entirely agree with the above, but I do feel that a certain aesthetic element is taken away from these arts once they're lowered to the level of practical science. I guess it's that mystical feeling of abstractness and generality that makes them so appealing, as opposed to the scientific ideas that often become too bogged down in concreteness and usefulness.


Take it away, Dick:






I suppose our boats are simply floated by different waters, especially as I consider it a _raising_ of the arts for them to be more thoroughly understood.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> Why is science so hostile towards philosophy?
> Why is science so hostile towards religion?
> Why is science so hostile towards the sociology of science?
> Why is science so hostile towards the criticism of pseudo-science?
> Why is science so hostile towards non-scientific explanations of the things it purportedly explains?


Science isn't hostile towards any of those things, it just contradicts many of them and, though not always, science tends to have a trump card because it actually _works_.



brianwalker said:


> You never hear Humanities types calling for an abolition of various scientific research programs, however risible some of them may be , but cuts from the Humanities are demanded from science types on a daily basis.


I think that's just obviously false. I imagine that people from both sides call for more favourable funding for their own endeavours, and if that's at the expense of someone else, so be it.


----------



## PetrB

Polednice said:


> Some of your comments are indicative of an unfortunate trend in thinking that scientific conclusions ought to have some utility. That's no doubt part of the reason why the creativity book I mentioned was written as glorified self-help - because people want something out of it. But to me and many others, it's not about utility, and it doesn't matter that artists and musicians don't find the conclusions useful. To me, the scientific study of the arts is an essentially _anthropological_ endeavour, but one that uses 21st Century tools and rigorous methodology. I'm only looking to know _why_ humans are the way they are, not _how_ to write the next best symphony.
> 
> For reference, my point of interest is that science and the arts are of equal importance to me - neither one is interior nor exterior to my being. First and foremost, I consider myself a writer. My prime activity is writing poetry and short stories, as well as non-fiction blogging. Unsurprisingly, the non-fiction I share regards scientific research, because, though I do consider myself a "creator" more than anything else, my _mindset_ is fundamentally a methodical, scientific one. I adore science because of the way it works, and it speaks to my artistic temperament.


I'm right in there 'with you' to agree on the 'value' of abstracted thought which has no 'practical' yield. If what you say about your interest in music via another discipline is at it is, I would call it more 'methodological' than what I associate with 'pure science.' Anthropology is part science and part psychology, which is not anywhere near an exact science - it is something quite 'else.' Medicine, while it avails itself of much science, is not, per se, a science.

The 'why' people want and make music -- so essential to 'us' it is likely that man came up with it before many of our more basic priorities and comforts were consciously thought of or those problems solved -- is both a remarkable and fascinating 'bit of evidence' that music is, seemingly, fundamentally crucial to our well-being.

When I hear 'science' applied to music, it is those who are, weirdly, out to prove one tuning system or the other is 'more true or organic,' that somehow diatonicism or its fellow twelve half-steps within the octave is 'right,' or dozens of other ridiculous premises upon which to base a theorem -- I haven't the time of day for that. There are those who truly believe one can catalogue intervals and equating them to linguistics come up with a list of concrete and universal emotions evoked by those intervals. Such lists exist: ergo, why are there not people able to produce, as per a formulated table, 'the tune' which would effect us all in exactly the same way? Because the basic intent is so simplistic, reductive, that it ends up, well, imo, very silly.

You're probably aware of Jacques Chailly's 40,000 years of music, a fun read, probably not nearly as in-depth as your pursuit would wish, but interesting nonetheless. At least in the first parts Chailly limned out the most likely first uses of music, and those uses do reflect how many think of music, from one angle or another, to this day, whether it is an isolated tribe or a 'tribal' urban youth relating to pop music. These things I do find interesting, as you say, 'for their own sake.'


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> Take it away, Dick:
> [video of Feynman speaking out of his ***]


You post the Authoritative Feynman and I post the Authoritative Gauss:

"...the greatest thing is purely mathematical thinking: this is worth much more than the application of mathematics."



Polednice said:


> I suppose our boats are simply floated by different waters, especially as I consider it a _raising_ of the arts for them to be more thoroughly understood.


I couldn't disagree more. Science is nice and all, but it's still nothing compared to the Total Art.


----------



## PetrB

Polednice said:


> Take it away, Dick:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose our boats are simply floated by different waters, especially as I consider it a _raising_ of the arts for them to be more thoroughly understood.


In that I find a fundamental difference in temperament: It has always seemed to me that those who have to 'break things down to the smaller elements' are actually compelled to REDUCE the very thing which attracts them, its enormity, its basic presence, because something about it so disturbs them that 'making it smaller' and more 'concretely understandable' by defining its lesser elements is the thrust _due to the fact the art and its greatness actually make them quite uncomfortable, as attractive as it is to them._ One can 'elevate' that by qualifying some minds are just compelled to analyze to know something better and in more depth, but my amateur guess on the psychology favors the 'break it down because it overwhelms me,' hypothesis 

A very necessary add:
Everyone, no matter how detached, has some personal perspective from their experience and what 'formed them.' 
Mine is that of having been directly involved in music, continually training to perform it from the age of six through conservatory, then did perform, accompany, teach, and later again returned to study theory and composition through masters level after that prior conservatory piano performance.
ERGO: all 'side angle' interests in music are of much lesser importance to me, and truth be told, from my perspective slight cause for wonderment as to why people can't simply enjoy it if they are not as actively and directly involved with it as I have been. I have never, at all, wondered about 'what a composer was thinking' when they composed that piece, nor wondered about 'the meaning' of a particular opus, other than 'what it is about' as Chopin's first Ballade is about the interval of the ninth -- I suppose because nothing else was necessary for my understanding of it.
But as to why others have other interests in, around, or on music, The Answer To That Question Is Simple: They are not me; I am not them


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> You post the Authoritative Feynman and I post the Authoritative Gauss:
> 
> "...the greatest thing is purely mathematical thinking: this is worth much more than the application of mathematics."


It wasn't an appeal, just an insight into a different point of view stated more eloquently than I would have managed. I appreciate your own outlook, which I wouldn't ever deem "wrong", just different.



Dodecaplex said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Science is nice and all, but it's still nothing compared to the Total Art.


My own contrary statement would be that Science and Art are equals, and only in tandem do we achieve a magnificent Total.


----------



## Polednice

PetrB said:


> In that I find a fundamental difference in temperament: It has always seemed to me that those who have to 'break things down to the smaller elements' are actually compelled to REDUCE the very thing which attracts them, its enormity, its basic presence, because something about it so disturbs them that 'making it smaller' and more 'concretely understandable' by defining its lesser elements is the thrust _due to the fact the art and its greatness actually make them quite uncomfortable, as attractive as it is to them._ One can 'elevate' that by qualifying some minds are just compelled to analyze to know something better and in more depth, but my amateur guess on the psychology favors the 'break it down because it overwhelms me,' hypothesis


I think the prevalent idea of reductionism is a faulty one. As you demonstrate, it gives a sense of breaking things down into their constituent parts in order to aid understanding. While it is true that we reach smaller and smaller levels of understanding, these can only be understood by in turn magnifying them! Because of the way our brains perceive things, we cannot conceive of the minutiae of a flower, we instead picture it and understand it in metaphorical terms of large tubes and connected networks. Conversely, it's also magnificent to scientifically consider the role of the flower as a small unit in a vast ecosystem, and that ecosystem as a unit on a planet. There is no single reference point from which we can say that something is reduced, only an aesthetic appreciation that remains constant on different levels of magnification. Besides, I find the "break it down because it overwhelms me" approach dubious - no matter how much we break something we down, we only find some other action and mechanism to be explained. We'll never reach an answer to _why_, so any scientist who pursues that question is in the wrong profession.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> The problem with the scientific analysis of art is that it's not productive in any way whatsoever with regards to great art; the true test of scientific knowledge is application


To the layman who only cares about eating, sleeping, and being employed, that is the be all and end all of scientific funding and inquiry. To other people, scientific analysis is its own reward; curiosity is followed for its own sake; knowledge and understanding valuable commodities in their own right. Application doesn't matter, and I don't think anyone seriously studying the science of art has even thought for a second about scientifically creating art. Sure, there are a few composition algorithms, but these are tongue in cheek, and not the aim of 99% of current research. We just want to know more, not do more. I find it peculiar how people don't understand this - perhaps it's a symptom of a society that must place utility values on everything in a form of super-consumerism. Didn't you ever read a book just to learn something?


----------



## brianwalker

Why Anthropology cannot escape literature.



> The matter is still further complicated by the fact that such scrutiny defines, in effect, the act of criticism itself. Even in its most naive form, that of evaluation, the critical act is concerned with confirmity to hte origin or specificy: when we say of art that it is good or bad, we are in fact judging a certain degree of conformity to an original intent called artistic. We imply that bad art is barely art at all; good art, on the contrary, comes close to our preconceived and implicit notion of what art ought to be. For that reason, the notion of crisis and that of criticsm are very closely linked, so much so that one could state that all true criticism occurs in the mode of crisis. To speak of a crisis of criticism is then, to some degree, redundant. In periods that are not periods of crisis, or in individuals bent on avoiding crisis at all costs, there can be all inds of approaches to literature: historical, philological, psychological, etc, but there can be no criticism. For such periods or individuals will never put the act of writing into question by relating it to its specific intent.... literary studies cannot possibly refuse to take cognizance of its existence. It would be as if historians refused to acknowledge the existence of wars because they interfere with the serenity that is indispensable to an orderly pursuit of their discipline.
> 
> The trend in Continental criticism, whether it derives its language from sociology, psychoanalysis, ethnology, linguistics, or even from certain from of philosophy, can be quickly summarized: it represents a methodologically motivated attack on the notion that a literary or poetic consciousness is in any way a privileged consciousness, whose use of language can pretend to escape, to some degree, from the duplicit, the confusion, the untruth that we take for granted in the everyday use of language. We know that our entire social language is an intricate system of rhetorical devices designed to escape from the direct expression of the desires that are, in the fullest sense of the term, unnameable, not because they are ethically shameful, but because unmediated expression is a philosophical impossibility. And we know that the individual who chose to ignore this fundamental convention would be slated either for crucifixion, if he were aware, or, if he were naive, destined to the total ridicule accorded such heroes as Candide and alll other foools in fiction or in life. The contemporary contribution to this age-old problem comes by way of a rephrasing of the problem that develops when a consciousness gets involved in interpreting another consciousness, the basic pattern from which there can be no escape in the social sicences (if there is to be such a thing.) *Levi-Strauss, for instance, starts out from the need to protect anthropologists engaged in the so-called "primitive" society from the error made by earlier positivistic anthropologists when they projected upon this society assumptions that remained nonconsciously determined by the inhibitions and shortcomings of their own social situation.* Prior to making any valid statement about a distance society, the observing subject must be as cear as possible about his attitude towards his own. He will soon discover, however, that* the only way in which he can accomplish this self-demystification is by a (comparative) study of his own social self as it engages in the observation of others, and by becoming aware of the pattern of distortions that this situation necessarily implies.* The observation and interpretation of others is always means of leading to the observation of the self: true anthropological knowledge (in the ethnological as well as in the philosophical, Kantian sense of the term) can only become worthy of being called knowledge when this alternating process of mutual interpretation between the two subjects has run its course. Numerous complications arise, because the observing subject is no more constant than the observed, and each time the observer actually succeeds in interpreting his subject he changes it, and changes it all the more as his interpretation comes closer to the truth. But every change of the observed subject requires a subsequent change in the observer, and the oscillating process seems to be endless. Worse, as the oscillation gains in intensity, and in truth, it bcomes less and less clear who is in fact doing the observing and who is being observed. Both parties tend to fuse int oa single subject as the original distance between them disappears. The gravity of htis development will once be clear if I allow myself to shift, for a brief moment, from the anthropological to the psychoanalytic or political model. In the case of a genuine analysis of the psyche, it means that it would no longer be clear who is analyzing and who is being analyized; consequently the highly embarrassing question arises, who should be paying whom....
> 
> The need to safeguard reasons from what might become a dangerous vertige, a dizziness of the mind caught in the infinite regression, prompts a return to a more rational methodology. The fallacy of a finite and single interpretation derives from the postulate of a privileged observer;* this leads, in turn, to the endless oscillation of an intersubjective demystification.* As an escape from this predicament, one can propose a radical relativism that operates from the most empirically specific to the most loftily general level of human behavior. There are no longer any standpoints that can a prior be considered privileged, no structure that functions validly as a model for other structures, no postulate of ontological hiearchy that can serve as an organizing principle from which particular structures derive in the manner in which a deity can be said to engender man and the world. All structures are, in a sense, equally fallacious and are therefore called myths. But no myth ever has sufficient coherence not to flow back into neighboring myths or even has an identity strong enough to stand out by itself without an arbitrary act of interpretation that defines it. The relative unity of traditional myths always depends on the existence of a privileged point of view to which the method itself denies any status of authenticity. "Contrary to philosophical reflection, which claims to return to the source," writes Claude Levi Strauss in Le Crue et le cuit, "the reflective activities involed in the structural study of myths deal with light rays that issue from a virtual focal point..." The method aims at preventing this virtual focus from being made in a real source of light. The analogy with optics is perhaps misleading, for in literature everything hinges on the existential status of the focal point; and the problem is more complex when it involves the disappearance of the self as a constitutive subject.
> 
> These remarks have made the transition from anthropology to the field of language and, finally, of literature. *In the act of anthropological intersubjective interpretation, a fundamental discrepancy always prevents the observer from coinciding fully with the consciousness he is observing*. The same discrepancy exists in the everyday language, in the impossibility of making the actual expression concide with what has to be expressed, of making the actual sign coincide with what it signifies. It is the distinctive privilege of language to be able to hide meaning behind a misleading sign, as when we hide rage or hatred behind a smile. But it is the distinctive curse of all language, as soon as any kind of interpersonal relation is involed ,that is forced to act this way. The simplest of wishes cannot express itself without hiding behind a screen of language that constitutes a world of intricate intersubjective relationships, all of them potentially inauthentic. In the everyday language of communication, there is no a priori privileged position of sign over meaning or of meaning over sign; *the act of interpretation will always again have to establish this relation for the particular case at hand.* The interpretation of everyday language is *a Sisyphean task, a task without end and without progress, for the other is alwyas free to make what he wants differ from what he says he wants. *The methodology of structural anthropology and that of post-Saussuriean linguistics thus share the common problem of a built-in discrepancy within the intersubjective relationship. As Levi-Strauss, in order to protect the rationality of his science, has to come to the conclusion of a myth without an author, so linguists have to conceive of a meta-language without speaker in order to remain rational.
> 
> If you've read this far you can read the rest of it here.
> 
> *AT the moment that they claim to do away with literature, literature is everywhere, what they call anthropology, linguistics, psychoanalysis is nothing but literature reappearing, like the Hydra's head, in the very spot where it had supposedly been suppressed.* The human mind wil go through amazing feats of distortion to avoid facing "the nothingness of human matters." I norder not to see that the failures lies in the nature of things, one chooses to locate it in the individual "romantic" subject, and thus retreats behind a historical scheme which, apocalyptic as it may sound, is basically reassuring and bland.
> 
> Levi-Strauss has to give up the notion of subject to safeguard reason. The subject, he said, in fact, is a "foyer virtuel," a mere hypothesis posited by the scientists to give consistency to the behavior of entities. The metaphor in his statement that "the reflective activities of the structuralists deal with light that issues from a virtual focal point ..." stems from the elementary laws of optical refraction. The image is all the more striking since it plays on the confusion between the imaginary loci of the physicist and the fictional entities that occur in literary language...*From this point on, a philosophical anthropology would be inconceivable without the consideration of literature as a primary source of knowledge. *


Plenty more where that came from.



Polednice said:


> To the layman who only cares about eating, sleeping, and being employed, that is the be all and end all of scientific funding and inquiry.


My point is that experimental productivity is the only way to ground the veracity of the project which it doesn't have support from hitherto already grounded experiment such as derivations made from laws already verified - theoretical physics is still better than the social sciences because its derivations are grounded upon earlier experimentally confirmed "truths" while anthropology has no such ground to stand on. Anything less merely presupposes that one theory with scientific language is true and the result is not research but pedantic seminal dissemination over data which is tortured to tell the truth that the theory wants it to tell. The problem is that the results are suppose to support the theory when in reality it's the other way around.



> To other people, scientific analysis is its own reward; curiosity is followed for its own sake; knowledge and understanding valuable commodities in their own right.


Except there's no way to know that it's actually knowledge.



> Application doesn't matter, and I don't think anyone seriously studying the science of art has even thought for a second about scientifically creating art.


The problem is that that's the only way to ground their finding as knowledge in the first place and not just popular theoretical writings that are popular among their peers.



> Sure, there are a few composition algorithms, but these are tongue in cheek, and not the aim of 99% of current research.


And what's the other 99%? And why must the other 99% be subsumed under the name of science? Composers have studies scores and music intricately way before the term was coined.



> We just want to know more, not do more.


Again that gets into an epistemological conundrum when the findings are pronounced knowledge.



> I find it peculiar how people don't understand this - perhaps it's a symptom of a society that must place utility values on everything in a form of super-consumerism.


No I'm objecting to the "knowledge" part. My objection is not that it's not useful for mass society but that it's not knowledge.



> Didn't you ever read a book just to learn something?


I listen to Wagner, the most useless thing in the world. It doesn't yield knowledge and it doesn't yield any social-talk value since the stories suck, it's in German, and there aren't that many recordings to compare and contrast.



Polednice said:


> Science isn't hostile towards any of those things, it just contradicts many of them and, though not always, science tends to have a trump card because it actually _works_.


Excepts the current disputes are never over things where science works and when I object to science making claims over areas where it doesn't work you get all uppity and spew garbage such as "science for its own sake" which makes no sense at all.

No one disputes the areas of science where it works.



> I think that's just obviously false. I imagine that people from both sides call for more favourable funding for their own endeavours, and if that's at the expense of someone else, so be it.


Why are there books written then that argue why the Humanities matter if it's not under siege?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9112.html



Polednice said:


> I think the prevalent idea of reductionism is a faulty one. As you demonstrate, it gives a sense of breaking things down into their constituent parts in order to aid understanding. While it is true that we reach smaller and smaller levels of understanding, these can only be understood by in turn magnifying them! Because of the way our brains perceive things, we cannot conceive of the minutiae of a flower, we instead picture it and understand it in metaphorical terms of large tubes and connected networks. Conversely, it's also magnificent to scientifically consider the role of the flower as a small unit in a vast ecosystem, and that ecosystem as a unit on a planet. There is no single reference point from which we can say that something is reduced, only an aesthetic appreciation that remains constant on different levels of magnification. Besides, I find the "break it down because it overwhelms me" approach dubious - no matter how much we break something we down, we only find some other action and mechanism to be explained. We'll never reach an answer to _why_, so any scientist who pursues that question is in the wrong profession.


I have no problem with reductionism if quantum physics is considered reductionist; my objections aren't aesthetic; in fact a lot of reality is ugly; *quantum jumps are very ugly *(well, they were thought ugly at the time of their discovery) and made many leading physicists at the time despair and regret getting into physics into the first place (I think it was Schrodinger). My objection is that the reductionist accounts are dispensations of philosophical positions and not verified in any way whatsoever and gets lost in its own rhetoric and picture.


----------



## tdc

I think the main issue I have with 'science' (using the term in the general way it seems to be often used here) is a lot of it seems to assume that the 'real world' is something external to ourselves that should to be studied, measured and analyzed in order to reach a better understanding. Much like Jung, Einstein and the Mayans I have come to think of the external world as an illusion, and in a constant state of change - and also dependent on the observer.

_Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens._
- Carl Jung

I think this idea terrifies many, thus a lot of people use 'science' as an escape of sorts, a way to keep them distracted from this very simple and powerful truth. By studying the fake outside world, one doesn't have to take that daring adventure of looking within and taking on the great work - the work of the heart. 'Science' when used in this way can allow individuals to stay 'cold' and 'unattached', studying largely useless data while ignoring this greater, realer world within.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> I think the main issue I have with 'science' (using the term in the general way it seems to be often used here) is a lot of it seems to assume that the 'real world' is something external to ourselves that should to be studied, measured and analyzed in order to reach a better understanding. Much like Jung, Einstein and the Mayans I have come to think of the external world as an illusion, and in a constant state of change - and also dependent on the observer.
> 
> _Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens._
> - Carl Jung
> 
> I think this idea terrifies many, thus a lot of people use 'science' as an escape of sorts, a way to keep them distracted from this very simple and powerful truth. By studying the fake outside world, one doesn't have to take that daring adventure of looking within and taking on the great work - the work of the heart. 'Science' when used in this way can allow individuals to stay 'cold' and 'unattached', studying largely useless data while ignoring this greater, realer world within.


I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of science. For starters, scientists have acknowledged for decades that the world we see and experiment with is not an objective reality. We know that our senses are dull compared to all the information that bombards the planet on a daily basis, but the reason experiment continues is that it yields results. We know that there must be an objective reality, even if we cannot experience it in its fullness, otherwise our technologies wouldn't consistently work in line with our derived laws of physics.

I also think you're relying on an image of science that has been popularised by Hollywood. There is nothing cold about it, and people don't retreat into it, finding comfort in numbers. Data is simply a tool used to reach conclusions; scientists do the work they do because they are fundamentally _passionate_ people who see beauty in the world around them. It takes a very special kind of passion and drive to enter a career in research - far more than you see in the average population working in IT or retail or finance or service industries. In fact, conducting science is surely a way of _confronting_ our daunting realities, while others retreat into art and entertainment to hide from it. See? It just depends how it's framed, and given that either side can frame it to suit their prejudices, that's indicative of misapprehensions in both camps.

Also, you bring up some points worth consideration, brianwalker, but I have not read anywhere near all the points you make, as it is daunting and unappealing to be presented with such mountains of often indecipherable text. If you were to make one or two essential arguments at a time, I might be more inclined to engage with you. With so many (often unfounded) claims being made all at once, I have no intention to engage with any of them, because any response I give seems to yield exponentially longer walls of strange reasoning.


----------



## Dodecaplex

tdc said:


> I think the main issue I have with 'science' (using the term in the general way it seems to be often used here) is a lot of it seems to assume that the 'real world' is something external to ourselves that should to be studied, measured and analyzed in order to reach a better understanding. Much like Jung, Einstein and the Mayans I have come to think of the external world as an illusion, and in a constant state of change - and also dependent on the observer.


Since the statement "the external world is an illusion and is dependent on the observer" is a result of observing the external world, then the statement itself must be an illusion and must be dependent on the observer. Quite a drawback for such a "simple and powerful Truth."

Also, stop misunderstanding poor Albert and check this out:

_"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is-insofar as it is thinkable at all-primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. *He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception*; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); *as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences.* He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research."_

Albert Einstein's philosophy of science


----------



## brianwalker

tdc said:


> I think the main issue I have with 'science' (using the term in the general way it seems to be often used here) is a lot of it seems to assume that the 'real world' is something external to ourselves that should to be studied, measured and analyzed in order to reach a better understanding. Much like Jung, Einstein and the Mayans I have come to think of the external world as an illusion, and in a constant state of change - and also dependent on the observer.
> 
> _Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens._
> - Carl Jung
> 
> I think this idea terrifies many, thus a lot of people use 'science' as an escape of sorts, a way to keep them distracted from this very simple and powerful truth. By studying the fake outside world, one doesn't have to take that daring adventure of looking within and taking on the great work - the work of the heart. 'Science' when used in this way can allow individuals to stay 'cold' and 'unattached', studying largely useless data while ignoring this greater, realer world within.


*For the record* this is not how I see/think about the world.

Also the notion of an "external world" ripe for examination is not something shared by all scientists.

See Here. 

What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.

Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...


----------



## tdc

Dodecaplex said:


> Since the statement "the external world is an illusion and is dependent on the observer" is a result of observing the external world, then the statement itself must be an illusion and must be dependent on the observer. Quite a drawback for such a "simple and powerful Truth."
> 
> Also, stop misunderstanding poor Albert and check this out:
> 
> _"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other.The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is-insofar as it is thinkable at all-primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. *He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception*; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); *as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences.* He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research."_
> 
> Albert Einstein's philosophy of science


Well, your first statement doesn't contradict what I said. It basically means exactly what I already said, and I didn't phrase it in the way you quoted me. As far as Einstein, I was referring to this quote:

"_Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one_."

-Albert Einstein

Nothing more. The other two ideas I tacked on there, weren't in specific reference to Einstein but seem pretty self explanatory ideas and I think are pretty well accepted by most scientists now.

The simple and powerful truth I was referring to, was not in reference to your misquote but in reference to the Jung quote: 
_Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart_...

Which I still do think is a pretty simple and powerful truth.


----------



## Dodecaplex

tdc said:


> Well, your first statement doesn't contradict what I said. It basically means exactly what I already said, and I didn't phrase it in the way you quoted me.


Actually, it completely destroys what you said. After all, you seem to accept the fact that the statement itself is an illusion and dependent on the observer, but you still treat it as though it revealed any type of knowledge that is worthy of mentioning. In other words, you denigrate a world that is an illusion, yet you put a statement that is also an illusion on a philosophical pedestal. Why the bias?



tdc said:


> As far as Einstein, I was referring to this quote:
> 
> "_Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one_."
> 
> -Albert Einstein


He never said such a thing. You're misquoting what he apparently says here:



> "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
> 
> -- Albert Einstein, in a letter to the family of his lifelong friend Michele Besso, after learning of his death, (March 1955) as quoted in Disturbing the Universe (1979) by Freeman Dyson Ch. 17 "A Distant Mirror."


In any case, in order to see what Einstein's views were, I would rather trust what he wrote in his work on the philosophy of science than what he (apparently) said after the death of a friend.



tdc said:


> The simple and powerful truth I was referring to, was not in reference to your misquote but in reference to the Jung quote:
> _Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart_...
> 
> Which I still do think is a pretty simple and powerful truth.


Well, I think it's nonsense. The inside is as much dependent on the outside as the outside is dependent on the inside. Looking only into your heart will barely give you half of the picture and render the rest of your vision blurred.


----------



## Sid James

I'm not wading too heavily in this debate, it's above my head (a lot of it). However, I think that artists today - visual, literary, musical, etc. - do integrate and enquire about scientific issues in their art, often it being a big focus in their output.

Australian artist Patricia Piccinini is one of these, her sculptures are interesting and often thought provoking comments on the possibilities of genetic sciences and all that. HERE is a selection of them.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

This has been an interesting discussion.

I have an idea that I hope some of you might agree to. A lot of this discussion has been about how we use scientific method to analyze art. What if we were to "artify" science? What if we were to use ideas such as aesthetics when thinking about scientific phenomenon? For ex. the "magic" of how chemistry works. The Period Table is _beautiful _in my opinion in its simplicity and complexity, that every element has its place, and that reactions can actually be predictable (there may be debate today about that too, but that's beyond my point).

Another ex. what DNA looks like. Sure, it is "efficient" to see that the double helix is as it is, because then mitosis and protein synthesis and all that stuff I learned a while back are made possible. But also, it's a complex and symmetrical shape, uncommon in any other kind of thing in the world, organic and inorganic. It is a work of art in my opinion.

Sure, there is a mixture of Artists in the world today who do and don't like their art to be scientifically analyzed. But are scientists today open to having Artists analyze Science by their own aesthetical standards to help the world appreciate science?


----------



## Sid James

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...
> Another ex. what DNA looks like. Sure, it is "efficient" to see that the double helix is as it is, because then mitosis and protein synthesis and all that stuff I learned a while back are made possible. But also, it's a complex and symmetrical shape, uncommon in any other kind of thing in the world, organic and inorganic. It is a work of art in my opinion.
> 
> ...


What you say there reminds me of a sculpture inspired by the structure of DNA over 20 years ago. Here is info about the artist and the artwork (quote in italics & source below) -

_Arthur Fleischmann (1896-1990) was born in Bratislava, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and pioneered the use of Perspex as a sculptural medium. He worked in Sydney from 1939 to 1948, then moved to London. In 1949 he created the bronze doors on the Mitchell Library depicting various explorers of Australia.* Fleischmann's last completed work before his death, a Perspex water sculpture titled A Tribute to the Discovery of DNA, was installed in the State Library of New South Wales in August 1990. *The Arthur Fleischmann Museum was established in Bratislava, Slovakia, in 2003.

_http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemDetailPaged.aspx?itemID=411415

Edit - images on this page below of Mr. Fleischmann's sculptures, he is working on the one I remember seeing in the first photo -

http://www.fleischmann.org.uk/gallwate.html


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> Australian artist Patricia Piccinini is one of these, her sculptures are interesting and often thought provoking comments on the possibilities of genetic sciences and all that. HERE is a selection of them.


I would hope that those images aren't representative, otherwise Piccinini is one of those putrid varieties of artists who must point towards future science as being extremely dangerous. Humanity has always had tools to endanger itself, science is no exception and has no intrinsically damaging qualities. This kind of fear-mongering is short-sighted and disingenuous. I suppose she hates GM crops and only eats organic food (forgive these baseless assumptions, but this kind of stuff is no better than scientists being evil or nerdy in Hollywood films).

Hui's idea is much better, and I have a few examples to hand - I'll have to post them tomorrow though as I'm just off to bed.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Yup, according to this, she has an "ambivalent attitude towards technology."


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> I would hope that those images aren't representative, otherwise Piccinini is one of those putrid varieties of artists who must point towards future science as being extremely dangerous. Humanity has always had tools to endanger itself, science is no exception and has no intrinsically damaging qualities. This kind of fear-mongering is short-sighted and disingenuous. I suppose she hates GM crops and only eats organic food (forgive these baseless assumptions, but this kind of stuff is no better than scientists being evil or nerdy in Hollywood films).


I'm not an expert on Piccinini but she's only asking questions of the viewer, not answering them, I think. I like the thought provocing aspect of her work in some ways. I don't have any sacred cows, in science or art. I think what her art makes me think is that science can be good, but the way humans use it can sometimes be no good. There are many examples of this around, artists just go off what's going on in this big wide world of ours.

But what I'm saying is that for artistic creators today, many of them, they are very insterested in science, on different aspects, views, debates about it, etc.



> ...Hui's idea is much better, and I have a few examples to hand - I'll have to post them tomorrow though as I'm just off to bed.


I gave another artist, the sculptor Fleischmann, as an example of art going off what she said. The beauty of nature, in this case the structure of DNA.


----------



## Sid James

Dodecaplex said:


> Yup, according to this, she has an "ambivalent attitude towards technology."


LOL, so have many people for ages. Funny how people around here can be pessimistic about humans but optimistic, even utopian, about science and technology.

You know about the thalidomide babies that were born with distorted limbs cos science said it's a good drug to prevent morning sickness. There are many examples of science going wrong. It's not all wrong, but it's not all right either.

Sometimes we think science is right, but with hindsight it ends up being very wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15536544

Then again, let's just do a false dichotomy...again. You gotta choose my way or you're wrong.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, but did Thalidomide prevent morning sickness


----------



## Cnote11

If I were a drinking man, I'd create a drinking game out of the number of times Sid says "false dichotomy".


----------



## aleazk

Sid James said:


> LOL, so have many people for ages. Funny how people around here can be pessimistic about humans but optimistic, even utopian, about science and technology.
> 
> You know about the thalidomide babies that were born with distorted limbs cos science said it's a good drug to prevent morning sickness. There are many examples of science going wrong. It's not all wrong, but it's not all right either.
> 
> Sometimes we think science is right, but with hindsight it ends up being very wrong.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15536544
> 
> Then again, let's just do a false dichotomy...again. You gotta choose my way or you're wrong.


Please, differentiate science and applied science... they are two different things. I do basic science and I have not killed anybody, I don't have obscure interests in alliance with the big pharmaceutical companies, I only study the curvature of spacetime, who, as far as I know, has not killed anybody (well, maybe to some people who have jumped from a skyscraper :lol:, but that's not my fault! )


----------



## Dodecaplex

Sid, what are you attacking me for? I never did anything other than report the facts. And you're making way too many assumptions about my views.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> If I were a drinking man, I'd create a drinking game out of the number of times Sid says "false dichotomy".


According to this old post of mine, the number would be 102.


----------



## tdc

Dodecaplex said:


> Actually, it completely destroys what you said. After all, you seem to accept the fact that the statement itself is an illusion and dependent on the observer, but you still treat it as though it revealed any type of knowledge that is worthy of mentioning. In other words, you denigrate a world that is an illusion, yet you put a statement that is also an illusion on a philosophical pedestal. Why the bias?
> 
> He never said such a thing. You're misquoting what he apparently says here:
> 
> In any case, in order to see what Einstein's views were, I would rather trust what he wrote in his work on the philosophy of science than what he (apparently) said after the death of a friend.
> 
> Well, I think it's nonsense. The inside is as much dependent on the outside as the outside is dependent on the inside. Looking only into your heart will barely give you half of the picture and render the rest of your vision blurred.


Hmmm...Overall, I don't agree with you. Einstein wasn't even that big of a part of my point, I was just mentioning three sources of intelligent minds from the past that hinted towards the illusory qualities of the physical universe. If I was to look into it I am sure there would be more sources suggestive of this and I could easily take Einstein out of the equation - I do not look to Einstein's theories to explain everything. I suggested that 'outside reality' is an illusion, for you to then state that the observer and the statement were also an illusion is to over-look the fact that I already stated outside reality is an illusion, therefore those things as far as they are a part of any outside reality are already implied by my statement, but as far as they are a part of any _inner reality_ they are exempt as I went on to state that I resonated with Jung's ideas of a real _inner world_. Therefore it is perfectly plausible for me to have philosophical views based upon this inner world that I am also connected to, and I believe we all are connected to. I was not trying to force my views on anyone, just giving my perspective.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Art is dumb. One time in art class I got an F for drawing wind lines. Science is dumb too. "Look at me, I have a microscope." Good for you, professor idiotface. *high fives your mother*


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> You know about the thalidomide babies that were born with distorted limbs _*cos science said*_ it's a good drug to prevent morning sickness. There are many examples of science going wrong. It's not all wrong, but it's not all right either.


Whoah, whoah, whoah - let's slow down right there! Everybody look at the emphasised part of the quote. Since when did _science_ have a voice? Science doesn't say anything, science doesn't get things right or wrong, _scientists_ do, humans do. This is why Piccadilly, or whatever the woman's name is, and many people like her get it so wrong. They feel ambivalence towards the _tool_ when they ought to be frightened of its _users_, and we would have much less reason to be frightened of its users if we weren't misplacing our distrust and giving kids poor science education.

I'll be back with science-art right after I go to the shop. NEED TO BUY ME SOME CHICKEN.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Funny how people around here can be pessimistic about humans but optimistic, even utopian, about science and technology.

Indeed. Better living through chemistry (Zyklon B) and technology (Hiroshima). It reminds me of the naive view of the late 19th and early 20th century that imagined humanity had become virtually the master of all they surveyed. One would have thought the two world wars alone would have altered that and made people a bit more cautious with regard to the infallibility of science.

Whoah, whoah, whoah - let's slow down right there! Everybody look at the emphasised part of the quote. Since when did science have a voice? Science doesn't say anything, science doesn't get things right or wrong, scientists do, humans do.

Hmmm... this sounds vaguely like the defense employed by the NRA (the national Rifle Association): "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Of course it's true... but guns certainly make killing people a lot easier. You don't even need to get all that near the other person. I must say I suspect that some of the distrust of science is the manner in which the defendants/apologists for science insist upon the infallibility of science. If anything goes wrong... if a scientific development is abused... its not the fault of science... its the fault of the individuals. Yet how often is religion (to use but a single example) afforded the same consideration? It seems to me that a good many here (and elsewhere) feel free to damn the whole of Islam or Catholicism (or the religion of your choice) for the admittedly horrible actions of individuals.

So why do many artists have a less than glowing appreciation of science. I think PetrB hits on some key points:

_No one likes their beloved clinically dissected.

The nature of science is to exclude anything not 95% verifiable as certain: Art is all about intuition and uncertainty, even when the final product has concrete forms, and a set of precepts about the medium itself. -- there is no accounting for the intuitive, seeming arbitrary choices many a composer works with, and within, on a regular basis._

Undoubtedly many artists have little knowledge or interest in science (Leonardo excepted), and many scientists have little or no interest in the arts. This alone is enough to inspire a distrust of the "other". How often are artists portrayed by those in the more practical disciplines (such as science) as flighty, impractical, emotional?

Application doesn't matter, and I don't think anyone seriously studying the science of art has even thought for a second about scientifically creating art. Sure, there are a few composition algorithms, but these are tongue in cheek, and not the aim of 99% of current research. We just want to know more, not do more. I find it peculiar how people don't understand this - perhaps it's a symptom of a society that must place utility values on everything in a form of super-consumerism.

My guess is that you are either being quite ingenuous here... or quite naive. I highly doubt that the governments and corporations... and universities (which are bankrolled by both) invest billions in scientific research merely on a whim... a desire to know more. The arts and humanities are constantly struggling to maintain their pitiable funding and are repeatedly called to prove their practical worth (links between music and mathematics, etc...). You cannot honestly believe that the billions and billions invested in scientific research is simply the result of curiosity.


----------



## aleazk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The nature of science is to exclude anything not 95% verifiable as certain: Art is all about intuition and uncertainty, even when the final product has concrete forms, and a set of precepts about the medium itself. -- there is no accounting for the intuitive, seeming arbitrary choices many a composer works with, and within, on a regular basis.[/I]
> 
> Undoubtedly many artists have little knowledge or interest in science (Leonardo excepted), and many scientists have little or no interest in the arts. This alone is enough to inspire a distrust of the "other". How often are artists portrayed by those in the more practical disciplines (such as science) as flighty, impractical, emotional?




My god, this is a chain of stereotypes!


----------



## quack

Previously in this thread:



Polednice said:


> They're providing their own small contribution to a huge conversation - a conversation you might reasonably be a part of


So science is a conversation that doesn't say anything? Strange.

You can't really criticise someone's metaphor if you are willing to use similar. Of course science says things, there are consensus views amongst scientists about how many things work. Certainly scientists don't always agree, it is not a wholly unified voice but "science says the earth revolves around the sun" is hardly putting words into the mouth of Science. Thalidomide was said by the majority of scientists in that specific field, to be safe and useful, the personified Science endorsed it for a while, even though they were relatively quick to admit their mistake.

As to your main question: I haven't known an especial hostility of the arts towards the sciences. Many artists feel themselves obliged to criticise scientists when they act foolishly, arrogantly, carelessly, traits all humans have a tendency towards no matter how rigorously they think they are applying the scientific method.

Every field of human thought has a strawman guarding it, I suppose that protects it from ignorant crows.


----------



## aleazk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... this sounds vaguely like the defense employed by the NRA (the national Rifle Association): "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Of course it's true... but guns certainly make killing people a lot easier. You don't even need to get all that near the other person. I must say I suspect that some of the distrust of science is the manner in which the defendants/apologists for science insist upon the infallibility of science. If anything goes wrong... if a scientific development is abused... its not the fault of science... its the fault of the individuals. Yet how often is religion (to use but a single example) afforded the same consideration? It seems to me that a good many here (and elsewhere) feel free to damn the whole of Islam or Catholicism (or the religion of your choice) for the admittedly horrible actions of individuals.


This is just hilarious. Man!, you are comparing science with a gun :lol:. Guns are constructed for kill people, they are intrinsically related with the fact of killing, it's for that reason that the argument of the NRA people is invalid. You can't apply that to science, since science is not intrinsically related with the fact of killing (I would like to see how do you use some facts about astrophysics to kill someone :lol. It's for that reason that the individual that uses the facts discovered by science has the responsibility and not science.


----------



## Polednice

Dear Jeebus, I'm surprised to see so many naive things here. Oh well, let's set about them.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... this sounds vaguely like the defense employed by the NRA (the national Rifle Association): "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Of course it's true... but guns certainly make killing people a lot easier. You don't even need to get all that near the other person. I must say I suspect that some of the distrust of science is the manner in which the defendants/apologists for science insist upon the infallibility of science. If anything goes wrong... if a scientific development is abused... its not the fault of science... its the fault of the individuals. Yet how often is religion (to use but a single example) afforded the same consideration? It seems to me that a good many here (and elsewhere) feel free to damn the whole of Islam or Catholicism (or the religion of your choice) for the admittedly horrible actions of individuals.


They sound similar, yes, but those are extremely poor analogies. Let's consider the comparison between guns and science. Remove the human, and what are we left with? Two tools of _very_ different natures. I mean, what is science? People assume it's chemistry and physics and rockets and bombs, but science is really just a framework for inquiry. You can inquire about anything you want, but there are certain rigorous methods and standards to make it more likely you get a reasonable answer. It has no goals, no pre-set purpose. What about a gun? Well, yes, it's just a chunk of metal, but it's _sole_ purpose is to inflict damage. Even if self-defence, it's use is to maim or kill. These are utterly incomparable things, and it's beneath you to compare them.

As for religion, when in its organised form, it is not an impartial tool that can be used for good or bad. It is a collection of dogmas, or at least a set of morals. There is no morality in the scientific method whatsoever. These are even less comparable, and are unworthy of further discussion.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> _The nature of science is to exclude anything not 95% verifiable as certain: Art is all about intuition and uncertainty, even when the final product has concrete forms, and a set of precepts about the medium itself. -- there is no accounting for the intuitive, seeming arbitrary choices many a composer works with, and within, on a regular basis._


I'm not sure if you wrote that or if you're quoting PetrB, but whoever wrote it is again providing a Hollywood stereotype. What is it with these?! You're all supposed to be familiar with art, seeing as you're all deeply into classical music, and yet you believe this twaddle about the uncertainty and intuitiveness of art as compared to the dull rationality of science? It's childish.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Undoubtedly many artists have little knowledge or interest in science (Leonardo excepted), and many scientists have little or no interest in the arts. This alone is enough to inspire a distrust of the "other". How often are artists portrayed by those in the more practical disciplines (such as science) as flighty, impractical, emotional?


This is undoubtedly you Stluke, and it's very, very bad. This *false dichotomy* (Hi, Sid  ) between science and art is yet another ridiculous notion that persists because of our perception of these Two Cultures. Sure, many scientists don't have an interest in art, and many artists don't have an interest in science. But do you think these pretty obvious statements are _representative_ of such people as a whole? _Most_ scientists who I talk to and who I have heard talk have spoken about the wonders of music and literature. I haven't spoken to many artists about science, but I am familiar with a not inconsiderable number of them who are fascinated by science and even write about it. Because what it comes down to is that scientists _and_ artists are all creative, and they're all extremely curious people. _Everything_ about the human condition is of interest, so this artificial wall between science and art is one that many scientists and artists don't recognise.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> My guess is that you are either being quite ingenuous here... or quite naive. I highly doubt that the governments and corporations... and universities (which are bankrolled by both) invest billions in scientific research merely on a whim... a desire to know more. The arts and humanities are constantly struggling to maintain their pitiable funding and are repeatedly called to prove their practical worth (links between music and mathematics, etc...). You cannot honestly believe that the billions and billions invested in scientific research is simply the result of curiosity.


I think you're twisting my words. It's quite obvious I wasn't talking about governments or corporations or universities. Of course they invest because they think there'll be some return (and there usually is, which is why the current under-funding of science is idiotic). But I was _obviously_ talking about scientists, and if you think the people actually conducting the research are doing it because they want some application, you're the one who's naive. Sure, scientists involved in pharmaceuticals are looking for stuff they can actually use, but scientists involved in art studies, or linguistics, or experimental psychology are very often only looking to satisfy their own yearning for knowledge, and if there comes an application, that's a bonus. I don't believe billions are invested because of curiosity, but that's not even remotely what I said.



quack said:


> So science is a conversation that doesn't say anything? Strange.


Science is a tool, the contents of journals as contributed by scientists are a conversation. What kind of argument is this? It's pathetic. The personified science you're talking about is a personification set up by people outside science to understand it; it doesn't actually exist, it's just a tool used by the media.

----------

I'm really quite surprised by the low calibre of argument that has appeared on this page. I'm sure I sound tremendously up myself and arrogant right now, but it really has been some of the worst I've seen. Maybe I should have expected it from a forum dedicated to one of the arts - it just shows how endemic the problem is.

I'll be back with some art in a few minutes.


----------



## Polednice

So, some science-art for you. First, there's Greg Dunn. He's a neuroscientist himself who has a passion for Japanese art (WAIT! A SCIENTIST WHO LIKES ART?!?!? GET OUT!), and uses gold leaf and scrolls to create paintings of brain structures. This one is called 'Hippocampus':










Then, in music, you have folks like Michael Zev Gordon. Presenting the opposite trend, Gordon is a musician trained in the UK who is interested in science, and he used features of the genetic code (particularly the A, C, G, T sequence) to transcribe music.

Literature is probably the most obvious realm where science and art meet, particularly in science fiction. Look to Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, Christopher Priest - there's tonnes of the stuff.

Let's also not forget that science can be a kind of art in its own right. As Stluke hinted at earlier, these drawings by Da Vinci are not only fascinating, they're beautiful.










And who can look at a fruit of science such as the Carina Nebula and not feel a sense of aesthetic awe that is fundamentally rooted in artistic taste?


----------



## aleazk

Polednice, you are sharped like a knife today! :clap: (try to not kill them, they can use that as an analogy for something! :lol


----------



## quack

Polednice said:


> Science is a tool





Polednice said:


> Some of your comments are indicative of an unfortunate trend in thinking that scientific conclusions ought to have some utility.


You set up a premise, that the arts are hostile to the sciences, you don't offer much evidence to support that and then complain when people agree with you that science isn't perfect and has faults. This is low calibre argumentation?

I don't think you sound up yourself, just kind of caught fighting the imaginary hoards of anti-science zombies, you probably believe me to be hostile to science because I disagreed with you. There are many that will use any of the mistakes or wrong turns of scientists to dismiss science as it suits their dislike of certain scientific conclusions but I don't see that any more prevalent in the arts than anywhere else.

C.P. Snow's typified "two cultures" of science and the humanities, scientific illiteracy was not seen as significant, while high culture illiteracy was regarded as an embarrassment. Things have changed since the 50s when Snow described that and while there is still often a wide gulf, owing to the ways both are conducted, it does not imply hostility, only ignorance.


----------



## Ukko

aleazk said:


> This is just hilarious. Man!, you are comparing science with a gun :lol:. Guns are constructed for kill people, they are intrinsically related with the fact of killing, it's for that reason that the argument of the NRA people is invalid.
> [...]


Wrong. Many guns are not 'constructed' to kill *people*. If fact, many guns are not 'constructed' to kill, period. This is _part_ of the reason that arguments people use against the NRA are invalid.


----------



## aleazk

Salvador Dali...






(at 1:59)


----------



## Polednice

quack said:


> You set up a premise, that the arts are hostile to the sciences,


My premise was that _some people_ are hostile towards science being applied to arts. I didn't set up a dichotomy between the arts and science, other people did, and now you're putting it at my feet. Have you actually been reading what _I_ said?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> My premise was that _some people_ are hostile towards science being applied to arts. I didn't set up a dichotomy between the arts and science, other people did, and now you're putting it at my feet. Have you actually been reading what _I_ said?


It's a common problem. I call it an echo effect, wherein one's own ideas modify, sometimes drown out, the sense of what he is hearing or reading.


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wrong. Many guns are not 'constructed' to kill *people*. If fact, many guns are not 'constructed' to kill, period. This is _part_ of the reason that arguments people use against the NRA are invalid.


NRA is fighting for Nerf Gun rights.


----------



## PetrB

Perhaps it is a good time, and a better strategy, to mention a few of those aspects of what science has found about music which you find excite your thoughts about music. Please, brief, and please, too, something beyond the utterly fundamental business around mere acoustics?

With all the resistance, something to allure rather than hammering away that you think science makes music more understandable, etc. I'd advise you that from my viewpoint - I believe a common one - there is little to be gained from an enlarged detailed study of one stone of the Cologne Cathedral, as an analogy. 

But I'd welcome a go at it which could somehow alter my general 'disdain' of what I think science has so far done for 'art.'


----------



## PetrB

Cnote11 said:


> NRA is fighting for Nerf Gun rights.


But dear Cnote11 -- what are guns for? All weaponry is based upon the idea of 'putting a hole in the other guy.'


----------



## Dodecaplex

tdc said:


> I suggested that 'outside reality' is an illusion, for you to then state that the observer and the statement were also an illusion is to over-look the fact that I already stated outside reality is an illusion, therefore those things as far as they are a part of any outside reality are already implied by my statement, but as far as they are a part of any _inner reality_ they are exempt as I went on to state that I resonated with Jung's ideas of a real _inner world_. Therefore it is perfectly plausible for me to have philosophical views based upon this inner world that I am also connected to, and I believe we all are connected to.


I'm completely confused by what you're calling an inner reality. If what you mean by it is the whole psychology with inner and unconscious minds and what have you, then this discussion won't go anywhere as I'm treating the question like a logical problem while you treat it in terms of psychoanalysis.


----------



## Polednice

PetrB said:


> With all the resistance, something to allure rather than hammering away that you think science makes music more understandable


You're still completely missing the point. I'm not interested in the science of music because I think it makes music more understandable (certainly not aesthetically), I'm interested in it because I like to know how the brain works. Why is that so hard to get?


----------



## Cnote11

PetrB said:


> But dear Cnote11 -- what are guns for? All weaponry is based upon the idea of 'putting a hole in the other guy.'


To be fair to HillTroll, not all guns are designed for this idea. I don't think the NRA is protecting people's rights to flare guns, however.


----------



## jttoft

PetrB said:


> It has always seemed to me that those who have to 'break things down to the smaller elements' are actually compelled to REDUCE the very thing which attracts them


- By that logic, people who study music and music theory appreciate music less than those who don't... Do you agree with this?
If anything, I think the opposite is true.


----------



## Polednice

jttoft said:


> - By that logic, people who study music and music theory appreciate music less than those who don't... Do you agree with this?
> If anything, I think the opposite is true.


Only 2 posts and you're one of my favourite members! Good point.


----------



## Sid James

Guys, I just use false dichotomy much less than the amount of false dichotomies I see on this forum. So gimme a break (but yes, it is a tired cliche). Speaking of which, I will from now on try and desist from taking part in things that are not music related, too political or controversial, etc. It gets too heated, but I might just read and pull back from taking part. I've said enough about these things recenlty anyway. I'm a centrist. I see myself not necessarily as a fence-sitter on many issues, but I believe that often the fence is imaginary, built by those on opposing sides, maybe tending towards more polarised views than myself (it's okay, I'm just not happy to come to the party). Is that a false dichotomy / rubbery logic / black and white thinking / contradictory / pseudo intellectual jargon...got plenty where that came from, believe me! :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My god, this is a chain of stereotypes!

Is it now? What percentage of the general populace has anything beyond a passing interest in science? Do you honestly imagine that artists have a greater interest than the general populace? Based upon what?


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> My premise was that _some people_ are hostile towards science being applied to arts. I didn't set up a dichotomy between the arts and science, other people did, and now you're putting it at my feet. Have you actually been reading what _I_ said?


And my point earlier was that a higher proportion of people are hostile towards art than hostile towards science, or religion, philosophy, or classical music for that matter.

Everyone loves quantum mechanics.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This is just hilarious. Man!, you are comparing science with a gun . 

Ummm... before jumping the gun perhaps you might invest some effort in reading comprehension. In no way is what I wrote comparing science to guns. What I was comparing was Polednice defense of science to the manner in which the NRA defends guns. Both arguments assume that the thing in question (guns or science) is purely harmless and that it is the individuals who abuse science or guns who are solely at fault.

Guns are constructed for kill people, they are intrinsically related with the fact of killing, it's for that reason that the argument of the NRA people is invalid. 

I'm sorry but:

1. You don't get to decide what arguments are invalid.
2. Please don't tell me that science has not been employed since the beginning of time in the creation of these very weapons that are designed solely for the purpose of killing people.

You can't apply that to science, since science is not intrinsically related with the fact of killing (I would like to see how do you use some facts about astrophysics to kill someone.

I have little doubt that weapons have already been created... or will eventually be created... employing the discoveries of astrophysics and any other number of fields of science and technology.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> And my point earlier was that a higher proportion of people are hostile towards art than hostile towards science, or religion, philosophy, or classical music for that matter.


I didn't pick up on that. Even if that was your point though, I think it's unsafe to speculate about the numbers. Sure, the population at large has quite a problem with art, considering it elite and pointless. But science conflicts with a _lot_ of people's ideas about how the world works metaphysically, and that has a much more direct impact than art snobbery. I don't think there's any way of telling which is more hated without doing a proper analysis.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> But dear Cnote11 -- what are guns for? All weaponry is based upon the idea of 'putting a hole in the other guy.'


Your ignorance is showing.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

They sound similar, yes, but those are extremely poor analogies. Let's consider the comparison between guns and science. Remove the human, and what are we left with? Two tools of very different natures. I mean, what is science? People assume it's chemistry and physics and rockets and bombs, but science is really just a framework for inquiry. You can inquire about anything you want, but there are certain rigorous methods and standards to make it more likely you get a reasonable answer. It has no goals, no pre-set purpose. What about a gun? Well, yes, it's just a chunk of metal, but it's sole purpose is to inflict damage. Even if self-defence, it's use is to maim or kill. These are utterly incomparable things, and it's beneath you to compare them.

C'mon Polednice... I know you're not that naive. You're just being really ingenuous here. You can argue that science exists in some Platonic ideal outside the reality of human existence... but you know that's not true. We must acknowledge the role of science in the development of TV and microwaves and the computer and the internet and modern medical wonders... but science has also been employed in the creation of nuclear warheads and the rockets that deliver these and the radar technologies that direct them and the development of bio-chemical warfare, etc...

As for religion, when in its organised form, it is not an impartial tool that can be used for good or bad. It is a collection of dogmas, or at least a set of morals. There is no morality in the scientific method whatsoever.

And perhaps that is part of the reason many distrust science and scientists... a lack of any morals. I suppose Robert Oppenheimer was able to sleep well at night thinking that he was in no way responsible for Hiroshima. He was only seeking knowledge. What others did with that knowledge wasn't his business at all. Is it at all possible that knowledge... too much knowledge... knowledge of certain things... can be dangerous? Humanity dating back to at least the Adam and Eve narrative seems to have thought so. Certainly the theme pops up again and again: Pandora's Box, Prometheus, Frankenstein.

I'm not sure if you wrote that or if you're quoting PetrB, but whoever wrote it is again providing a Hollywood stereotype. What is it with these?! You're all supposed to be familiar with art, seeing as you're all deeply into classical music, and yet you believe this twaddle about the uncertainty and intuitiveness of art as compared to the dull rationality of science? It's childish.

Perhaps the problem here is that you are merely studying art (literature) while I am an artist... and as such I recognize the fact that the creation of art is in no way limited to conscious, analytical, rational thinking. Uncertainty, accidents, the subconscious, intuition, divergent thinking, etc... all play a major role in the creation of art. Your comments concerning the "childishness" of my thinking with regard to artistic creation is but one more example of why many artists distrust science and scientists. Far too often they imagine that art can be reduced to scientific rules, and far too often they take a patronizing attitude toward those poor childish artists and their notions of intuition, emotion, the subconscious, etc...

I haven't spoken to many artists about science, but I am familiar with a not inconsiderable number of them who are fascinated by science and even write about it. Because what it comes down to is that scientists and artists are all creative, and they're all extremely curious people.

So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me.

I might make quite different claims based upon my experiences. Not that artists deride the whole of science. Geometry, optics, chemistry (with regard to the make up of paints), the basic physics as involved in architectural design and construction are quite common interests of most painters and sculptors.

_My guess is that you are either being quite ingenuous here... or quite naive. I highly doubt that the governments and corporations... and universities (which are bankrolled by both) invest billions in scientific research merely on a whim... a desire to know more. The arts and humanities are constantly struggling to maintain their pitiable funding and are repeatedly called to prove their practical worth (links between music and mathematics, etc...). You cannot honestly believe that the billions and billions invested in scientific research is simply the result of curiosity._

I think you're twisting my words. It's quite obvious I wasn't talking about governments or corporations or universities. Of course they invest because they think there'll be some return (and there usually is, which is why the current under-funding of science is idiotic). But I was obviously talking about scientists...

But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world.

I'm really quite surprised by the low calibre of argument that has appeared on this page. I'm sure I sound tremendously up myself and arrogant right now, but it really has been some of the worst I've seen. 

And as arrogant and pretentious as you do indeed sound in your current role as apologist for science, can you in any way wonder why many in the arts and humanities are not enthusiastically embracing science and scientists?


----------



## Cnote11

This thread is really boring.


----------



## Cnote11

Also, one should know there is a special committee for deciding which arguments are invalid.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My premise was that some people are hostile towards science being applied to arts. I didn't set up a dichotomy between the arts and science, other people did...

You asked for reasons why there is this perceived antagonism between individuals who are passionate about two very different disciplines: Science vs the Arts. You might just as well used any number of other dichotomies: Football and the Ballet (Why are so few football fans enamored of ballet?) Hunting and Poetry (Why are so few hunters interested in Yeats, Keats, and T.S. Eliot?) Bowling and Medicine (Why aren't more doctors participating on bowling leagues?)

After establishing your dichotomy... which you are certain is false (And is it? Is there no distrust, antagonism... or simply misunderstanding between the Adherents of science and Art?) you set about dismissing all the reasons presented by others and insulting them... effectively illustrating at least one reason why there might be a degree of antagonism between art and science: arrogance.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't think people who bowl are actively hostile towards medicine. It seems to me you are distorting what Polednice is attempting to say.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> C'mon Polednice... I know you're not that naive. You're just being really ingenuous here. You can argue that science exists in some Platonic ideal outside the reality of human existence... but you know that's not true. We must acknowledge the role of science in the development of TV and microwaves and the computer and the internet and modern medical wonders... but science has also been employed in the creation of nuclear warheads and the rockets that deliver these and the radar technologies that direct them and the development of bio-chemical warfare, etc...


Sure, I acknowledge that the scientific method was a necessary condition for the creation of those, but I can't even remember what this point was about. Something to do with the NRA? I think it's strayed a little from the point of the OP, and the morality of science is a large, separate issue that I'm not interested in spending time on right now (though it's worth considering that for all the bad it has aided, Pandora's Box, Frankenstein, and 21st Century equivalents have the same air as old fogies who condemn young'uns for being amoral. The world just keeps getting better in reality).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Perhaps the problem here is that you are merely studying art (literature) while I am an artist... and as such I recognize the fact that the creation of art is in no way limited to conscious, analytical, rational thinking. Uncertainty, accidents, the subconscious, intuition, divergent thinking, etc... all play a major role in the creation of art. Your comments concerning the "childishness" of my thinking with regard to artistic creation is but one more example of why many artists distrust science and scientists. Far too often they imagine that art can be reduced to scientific rules, and far too often they take a patronizing attitude toward those poor childish artists and their notions of intuition, emotion, the subconscious, etc...


Let's not be too prescriptive with labels. I may not get paid for it or consider myself a professional, but I write poetry and music - I hope we won't get into a debate about whether or not I qualify for the title "writer" or "composer". I also don't think that creativity is limited to analytical and rational thinking, nor do I think uncertainty and intuition are not major factors; I also do not set out to demean the role of the subconscious and emotion. These accusations you think I'm making stem from your earlier bias that I set out against that there is this stringent division between emotional art and rational science. _Both_ science _and_ art are _equally_ analytical and scatty, emotional and rational, conscious and subconscious. Everything plays a role, and that's why I don't think they're as dissimilar or separate as you or others seem to believe. The only time I might patronise poor childish artists is when they think that intuition and emotion is _all_ there is to their work.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me.


Indeed, I thought that when writing it but thought, "what the hell.. everyone else posts ****** anecdotes!"  I think it would stand up to surveys, though, that people in the arts and sciences are generally curious about everything and don't restrict themselves so arbitrarily to their own "culture".



StlukesguildOhio said:


> But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world.


Of course the scientists know that strings are attached, and so do the artists who rely on patronage of some form or another. But do you think that artists go into it for the utility or the money? Did you? I don't think many do. They do it because they _are_ idealistic - passionately and rightfully so - but then do what they can to justify their endeavours to the money-givers. It's a game they have to play to keep on doing what they're doing. This is true for scientists and artists.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And as arrogant and pretentious as you do indeed sound in your current role as apologist for science, can you in any way wonder why many in the arts and humanities are not enthusiastically embracing science and scientists?


Because of the rampant stereotypes and misunderstanding evidenced in this thread.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But I doubt all that many doctors can be found at the local bowling alley. Or perhaps I'm just frequenting the wrong alleys.:lol:


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You asked for reasons why there is this perceived antagonism between individuals who are passionate about two very different disciplines: Science vs the Arts. You might just as well used any number of other dichotomies: Football and the Ballet (Why are so few football fans enamored of ballet?) Hunting and Poetry (Why are so few hunters interested in Yeats, Keats, and T.S. Eliot?) Bowling and Medicine (Why aren't more doctors participating on bowling leagues?)
> 
> After establishing your dichotomy... which you are certain is false (And is it? Is there no distrust, antagonism... or simply misunderstanding between the Adherents of science and Art?) you set about dismissing all the reasons presented by others and insulting them... effectively illustrating at least one reason why there might be a degree of antagonism between art and science: arrogance.


My essential point which no one seems willing to pick up on is that science and art are _not_ all that dissimilar, and the dichotomy comes from people such as yourself who are determined to maintain the imaginary wall.


----------



## Cnote11

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But I doubt all that many doctors can be found at the local bowling alley. Or perhaps I'm just frequenting the wrong alleys.:lol:


I don't think people would be hostile to the idea of doctors frequenting bowling alleys. Obviously they don't in large numbers, since doctors make up a small amount of the population. It needs credentials. Almost everybody has an opinion on science, whether they are well-versed in it or not. I just don't really see how what everybody has been arguing about for 2 pages is relative to the topic anymore.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> Why do you think it exists?
> 
> I think it's quite similar to philosophers and religionists who jump to shout "scientism!" at every opportunity, making sure everyone knows that it's only one way of knowing (because, of course, divine revelation is an equally valid foundation for making assertions about the mechanics of the universe...).
> 
> We do have to be careful not to think that science is the answer to everything, or that reductionist approaches - while certainly possible in all areas - will give us meaningful or useful answers in all areas. Yet, in my experience reading science books and through interacting with scientists, I have come across _no one_ who thinks like that. I very much think that people try to pull science down _not_ because people are applying it too broadly, but because they want some metaphysical or non-rational system to be elevated alongside it. It's quite pathetic.
> 
> ...There's a happy medium to be found somewhere in all of this, but I think that our critical eye doesn't need to be applied with _antagonism_. *When a scientist comes out with a research article, they're not making claims to having discovered some grand answer that explains everything. They're providing their own small contribution to a huge conversation *- a conversation you might reasonably be a part of if you're willing to voice your critical ideas in a manner that suggests you hope research is improved next time, rather than in a way that makes it seem as though you think science has no place whatsoever in the arts.
> 
> ...


Okay I reread the OP, and now I think I can see it more clearly. Maybe?

The part I bolded about different scientific research or aspects/areas of science, different conclusions makes me think of history, which is my passion. I've said it before here, in history one has to examine and apply critical thinking and sleuthing, educated guesses, to primary, secondary and tertiary sources. A mixture of documents. Often no two historians will come up with the same ideas about what or how things happened at a certain point in time. Or even when, if the date is disputed.

So what I'm saying is that there is a method to historical research. Same as there is a method to science (eg. doing experiments to test hypotheses). This can be very creative as you are led down different paths at once, focus on one avenue that's more fruitful, and may have to retrace your steps.

What I take from this is that humans are innately creative and they are unique in how they think and attack a problem or question.

So what I take from the OP is that in science, as in history, there is a higher level which does approach the creativity found in art. People can make different conclusions from same or similar evidence. & don't forget that many scientific and historical - well eg. archeological - discoveries where made by mistake or coincidence (eg. while trying to find or researching something else). There are so many examples of this.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Pandora's Box, Frankenstein, and 21st Century equivalents have the same air as old fogies who condemn young'uns for being amoral.

Again... you are making some rather large and arrogant presumptions. All those who question the infallibility of science and the notion of "better living through chemistry or technology"... especially after having witnessed the horrors of the last century and all that was wrought in part by idealistic notions of social science, medicine, psychiatry, physics, etc... are to be dismissed as old "fuddy-duddies"? It seems to me that the questions as to whether there is something such as too much knowledge or "forbidden knowledge" remains relevant.

The world just keeps getting better in reality.

Does it? That's always open to debate.

Let's not be too prescriptive with labels. I may not get paid for it or consider myself a professional, but I write poetry and music - I hope we won't get into a debate about whether or not I qualify for the title "writer" or "composer". 

Yes... let's avoid that debate. I'm not up for the post-Duchamp/post-1960's notion that everyone's an "artist". I had a headache this morning and took some Ibuprofen... I guess that qualifies me as a "doctor" as well.

I also don't think that creativity is limited to analytical and rational thinking, nor do I think uncertainty and intuition are not major factors; I also do not set out to demean the real of the subconscious and emotion. These accusations you think I'm making stem from your earlier bias that I set out against that there is this stringent division between emotional art and rational science. Both science and art are equally analytical and scatty, emotional and rational, conscious and subconscious. Everything plays a role, and that's why I don't think they're as dissimilar or separate as you or others seem to believe.

I don't question this... but honestly I think there's more of a perception of hostility directed toward the arts (rather than science) by those in nearly every other discipline for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible to establish a practical use or necessity for the arts.

The only time I might patronise poor childish artists is when they think that intuition and emotion is all there is to their work.

I have no use for such thinking myself. I'm quite frequently the first to challenge those who embrace such Romantic ideals and presume that discipline, practice, knowledge of art history, compositional rules, color theory, anatomy, perspective, geometry, etc... is not only unnecessary to the visual arts... but actually detrimental.

_So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me._

Indeed, I thought that when writing it but thought, "what the hell.. everyone else posts ****** anecdotes!" I think it would stand up to surveys, though, that people in the arts and sciences are generally curious about everything and don't restrict themselves so arbitrarily to their own "culture".

Well... again it would depend upon how you define interest in science. I personally utilize basic geometry and perspective (and have studied the use of such by Islamic and Western artists. Over the years I have employed basic physics as related to construction. I have also studied chemistry as it relates to the drying times of various pigments of oil paint, etc... I also spent a good deal of time in the study of anatomy and physiology... as it affects the surface appearance of the human body. On the other hand... I can't say I've ever been greatly interested in reading up on physics, biology, chemistry, etc... I'm far more interested in history and art/cultural history of both my own culture... and others. I have an artist friend who loves mathematics... but most of the artists I know don't really seem overly interested in science

_But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world._

Of course the scientists know that strings are attached, and so do the artists who rely on patronage of some form or another. But do you think that artists go into it for the utility or the money?

Well... there's always Samuel Johnson's declaration: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." This strikes many of us today as blasphemous... but we're all living with post-Romantic thinking. I wonder how many Renaissance or Classical-era Greeks and Romans would even think to question this notion.

Did you? I don't think many do.

Certainly I went into art with the notion that I might be able to make a living from what I am passionate about... and good at. I still hold onto this notion. On the other hand... if you could see into the future and told me that I would never make another dime from my art, I would continue to make art. I would assume that a great many individuals go into a field of study that they are interested in with similar notions that they might be able to make a living from it.

They do it because they are idealistic - passionately and rightfully so - but then do what they can to justify their endeavours to the money-givers. It's a game they have to play to keep on doing what they're doing.

Unfortunately, this game sometimes involves "pandering" to the audience/patrons. Those who insist they would never stoop to such a level are in most circumstances those who have never been presented with such temptation. One of my studio mates presented us with the question... "What if a buyer told you, 'I really like this painting, but could you make one in red?' offering you a substantial sum of money." My other studio mate responded, without skipping a beat, "I'd say f*** you! How soon do you need it and what shade of red do you prefer?":lol:


----------



## Cnote11

I just made art.


----------



## Dodecaplex

I _love_ how you arrive and post a one liner every so often, and then you proudly disappear into the sunset with the certainty that we can't wait until your next visit.


----------



## Sid James

This is relevant (not!). Australia has a rock band called Art vs. Science. They're a pretty good group, imo (dunno why they named themselves that, just know their music, a bit).


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes... let's avoid that debate. I'm not up for the post-Duchamp/post-1960's notion that everyone's an "artist". I had a headache this morning and took some Ibuprofen... I guess that qualifies me as a "doctor" as well.


Ouch! If scientists turn off artists with arrogance, you can see that artists return the favour with shameless elitism. I think that puts an end to our conversation.


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> I _love_ how you arrive and post a one liner every so often, and then you proudly disappear into the sunset with the certainty that we can't wait until your next visit.


I'm thoroughly amused by how you and HillTroll have made up these personas for me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Is he as much of a fan as I am? Or is he more critical of your behavior?


----------



## Cnote11

He creates a persona for me so he can be more critical of my behavior. At the same time, he is a huge fan because being critical of things is his favorite hobby.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I'm thoroughly amused by how you and HillTroll have made up these personas for me.


That's _personae_.

If _Cnotell_ stuck to one-liners his errors in reasoning would be much less apparent, so I wouldn't have to try to get him back on track.

:devil:


----------



## Webernite

I read this whole thread. It was pretty dire, with weak arguments on both sides. 

Bye. :tiphat:


----------



## Igneous01

Webernite said:


> I read this whole thread. It was pretty dire, with weak arguments on both sides.
> 
> Bye. :tiphat:


applaud my friends, for the trolling is over.


----------



## Webernite

Seriously, I can't even work out what either side is arguing for. The terms of the debate seem very vague. 

Some people are talking about "art" (e.g. painting), other people about "the arts" (e.g. anthropology), as if they were the same thing. That's just one example.


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Seriously, I can't even work out what either side is arguing for. The terms of the debate seem very vague.
> 
> Some people are talking about "art" (e.g. painting), other people about "the arts" (e.g. anthropology), as if they were the same thing. That's just one example.


The errors appear to be in your reading comprehension. :tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's _personae_.
> 
> If _Cnotell_ stuck to one-liners his errors in reasoning would be much less apparent, so I wouldn't have to try to get him back on track.
> 
> :devil:


Personas is also an accepted plural of persona. Seriously HillTroll, get with the times.


----------



## Webernite

Polednice said:


> The errors appear to be in your reading comprehension. :tiphat:


I'm not talking about the opening post, if that's what you mean. Otherwise I think my comprehension is pretty good.


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> I'm not talking about the opening post, if that's what you mean. Otherwise I think my comprehension is pretty good.


No, I agree, there was a lot of ***** on this thread, but it was _all_ from the other side of the debate.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree with Webernite. The last few pages have been baby drool. People are flying all over the place and hardly paying attention to what others are trying to say. It got a bit messy.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I agree with Webernite. The last few pages have been baby drool. People are flying all over the place and hardly paying attention to what others are trying to say. It got a bit messy.


I think they've all got Moody Troll Syndrome - twisting the meaning of their opponents arguments so that they can get the maximum amount of criticism fodder.


----------



## Webernite

Cnote11 said:


> I agree with Webernite.


Yeah, so do I. He's right about everything.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> Personas is also an accepted plural of persona. Seriously HillTroll, get with the times.


But, but... 'personas' is so declasse.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> But, but... 'personas' is so declasse.


_Déclassé_, Mr. Troll.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> _Déclassé_, Mr. Troll.


Only if you are a Frenchie.


----------



## Cnote11

How can one be classy otherwise?


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Only if you are a Frenchie.


Are you telling me that you spell _café_ as cafe, _cliché_ as cliche, and _naïve_ as naive? Ugh, how common.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Are you telling me that you spell _café_ as cafe, _cliché_ as cliche, and _naïve_ as naive? Ugh, how common.


We hillbillies don't put on ãîrs.


----------

