• In total there are 37 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 34 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Art AND Science

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

It seems the language of art is more precise than the language of science, which is often too abstract to accurately depict experience
Art is subjective and science is objective. It's not a clear cut dichotomy, but applies generally. The language of science is measured by it's ability to precisely depict reality. I wonder why you think it's the other way around?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
It seems the language of art is more precise than the language of science, which is often too abstract to accurately depict experience
Art is subjective and science is objective. It's not a clear cut dichotomy, but applies generally. The language of science is measured by it's ability to precisely depict reality. I wonder why you think it's the other way around?

I never said art was objective.

But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.
you might like to think of a theory as freezing objectivity for a moment. but the onward rush of understanding proves this is certainly a transient state.

science aims at laws that apply in all cases and at all times.
the evidence is mounting that laws are by and large local and not universal.

but that's an entirely different discussion.
Last edited by ant on Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

ant wrote:But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.
How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?

Most theories aren't in a state of flux. Most of them are pretty damned solid even if we're still filling in some of the details. We've moved past them and are now exploring new frontiers, feeling around in the dark. So perhaps modern theories are in a state of flux because they're still speculative/philosophical.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

geo wrote:
ant wrote:But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.
How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?

Most theories aren't in a state of flux. Most of them are pretty damned solid even if we're still filling in some of the details. We've moved past them and are now exploring new theories still in the speculative/philosophical stages. So many modern theories are still in a state of flux because we’re still feeling around in the dark.
Geo,
No one is denying certain scientific explanations are accurate descriptions of our everyday experience.
It is our ambitious attempts at universalizing laws that I am attempting to speak of here.

There's nothing wrong with the ambitious attempts to unify laws to achieve objectivity. Actually achieving that is an entirely different matter than beating your chest because we're all certain if you jump of a building, you'll go splat, the earth is millions of years old, etc. etc.

Quite frankly, Geographical theories are to this date revised as more data becomes available.
It is always a work in progress. Even the scientific community freely admits it.
It's not a crime or a shame to point that out.

Actually, mathematical models are permeated with complex symbolism that adjusts accordingly to match experience.
It's an attempt to match abstraction with reality. It is the flexibility our "language" needs to justify itself.

The language or art is different (lets stay on point here, okay?).
The expression of the artist, IMO, conveys more to our experience of the world we actually exist in.
It is quite impressive of the artist, i'd say.
Last edited by ant on Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
The difference is the direction that artists and scientists apply themselves. The product of science is judged by how accurately it reflects reality. The product of art is judged by how well it elicits emotion. Which means great art will always elicit a great deal of emotion, but great science may be ugly as hell, like pi.
And emotions that are evoked by reality?
As an evolutionary function to benefit the fitness of our species, wouldn't emotion be inextricably linked to reality?
Why does a sunset elicit emotion? What might be the evolutionary purpose of a link like that?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

ant wrote:But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.
Perfect objectivity isn't achievable, in any fashion. If the concept of objectivity is to be useful at all outside of being an ideal, then science is more objective than any other enterprise. It boils down to your definition of objectivity. However you parse it, science is far more objective than art.
ant wrote:As an evolutionary function to benefit the fitness of our species, wouldn't emotion be inextricably linked to reality?
If you reread my lengthy post above, you'll see that it's all inextricably linked. Intelligence and emotion and even reality, if you wish. The separations we create for discussion are arbitrary. A snowflake can be considered natural art, or rock formations, or the sunset.

You'll have to explain what your point is by asking those questions. I'm not sure if I even answered them.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

geo wrote:How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?
Science should have just stopped right there! D'Oh! We could'a been Objective! :slap:
Changing things in response to new informa.....dang it, it's up to everyone now, it is all subjective!
But Bach vs. Beethoven? Or Renoir vs. VanGogh? Whew! That IS timeless objectivity!
Last edited by LanDroid on Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:
geo wrote:How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?
Ohhh! We should have just stopped right there! D'Oh! We could'a been Objective! :slap:
Changing things in response to new informa.....dang it, it's up to everyone now, it is all subjective!
But a symphony? Or Renoir vs. VanGogh? Whew! That IS objective!

are you effin serious?
is that how you're interpreting this conversation I've started?

WTF is wrong with you?
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Art AND Science

Unread post

ant wrote:
Wouldn't you say a Beethoven masterpiece is "timeless" whereas scientific laws are not because they are in a state of constant flux?

But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.
Etc...
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”