Science and the arts

DaRk Penguin · Eligible to vote! Joined: 16 Jun 2003 Posts: 16 Gender:

Leading Question: Should science and the arts be seperated and distinct?

or does science have any right or ability to make sense of the arts?

I am reading a book called A Guide For The Perplexed by E.F.Schumacher and he's not a big fan of material scientism. He believes that such a tool cannot unlock the secrets of Shakespeare's Hamlet, all it can do is point to the number of words in the book and nothing more.

But can a case be made that science can make sense of Hamlet?

If I had to make a case I'd start with the view of evolution that "a hen is just an egg's way of reproducing itself"......and extending this to emotions and consciousness are just a human gene's way of reproducing itself. Once emotions can be explained by science (which is already the case for cognitive science, neuropsychology, and immunophysiology) Hamlet could be explained in terms of emotions and thus science could bring meaning to hamlet.

Doc Tiessen · Intern Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 161 Gender:

Science and Art Generate Diversity

Science and art are both truly aesthetic efforts. They are creative processes that are based on inspiration, imagination, intuition, interpretation and technical skill. Both develop best in an environment of intellectual freedom. Both require talent, dedication and a lifetime of learning. Material resources are needed, but more important is the human input. Science and art are similar because they both create new diversity that is required to maintain our world. The practical skills and efforts in art are called performance and in science they are called research. In art, the selection of diversity is called beauty, and in science it is called truth. My uncle –a very talented architect, artist and writer– once told me that art was the revelation of the mystery... he also mentioned the importance of the generation of symbols. I replied to him: Science does the same!
Both will never provide a final view of the world, but only provisory answers. The value and usefulness of both resides in generating and understanding the beauty of this world. Both are able to create new beauty that is required for the success of our civilisation and progress of our economy.

RickU · Junior Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 316 Gender:

Nicely said Doc,

With one exception -

Quote:
Both will never provide a final view of the world, but only provisory answers.

This isn't something we can know. Science has the capacity to provide answers to a "final view of the world" and interpretive art could render such according to the artist. In fact, in this sense art can lead science. Any artist can render their final view of the world and none could naysay them.

In Vino Veritas

Doc Tiessen · Intern Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 161 Gender:

Rick,

Scientic theories describe only so accurately as possible the phenomena that we observe in the universe... but this is not "the final truth". It is only a provisory one... scientific theories are like a fashion that can come and go... for example, Newrton said that the apple fells down because of the mass of the apple is attracted by the mass of the earth... F=ma
Later Einstein said that Newton was out of fashion... that gravitation is due to the space-time curvature...
So we now believe in the fashion E=mc2

In a few decades, you will see that Einstein will fall out of fashion... maybe Einstein was not fully correct... nobody will ever be fully correct... we will closer and closer, but will never arrive at the final absolute truth....

Diversity is Good!


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT