Is Science An Art?

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
  • #26
755
0
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Seems to me to imply that scientists as a group lead richer lives than artists as a group.
Look at the difference in salaries

And, whomever it was who said that "artists can lie" when they represent something incorrectly to make it "fit" or whatever... but scientists cannot because they'll lose all their standing etc...

horsepuckies.

Practically every doctor, scientist or researching PhD I've known, and that is a large number, has fudged their data to make a nice curve on their graph or a better number in their table. And they're still standing... and they still have standing... and they can attribute some of their standing to that fudged data.

When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
6,265
1,280
Originally posted by quantumcarl And, whomever it was who said that "artists can lie" when they represent something incorrectly to make it "fit" or whatever... but scientists cannot because they'll lose all their standing etc...
Please quote this person, verbatim.
Practically every doctor, scientist or researching PhD I've known, and that is a large number, has fudged their data to make a nice curve on their graph or a better number in their table. And they're still standing... and they still have standing... and they can attribute some of their standing to that fudged data.
If their fudged data were to come to light they would no longer be standing.
When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.
This is called "Blaming the victim".

You have to explain what you mean about investigating the claims of artists, because I don't see Art as a sitution where any particular claims are made that need investigating.

How would the average member of society get access to any researcher's data in order to check it?
 
  • #28
755
0
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Please quote this person, verbatim.


from R.Parsons:
Because if it is that writing, well, he misses one of the most important differentiations between Art and Science, the oblique right of an artist to lie (outrightly, and known to be that!) in their presentation of a work. As in a completley imaginary landscape scene that has absolutely no comport in reality, can still garner attention, accreditation, and be seen as meritorious.

NO scientist is permitted to hold to any "lie" that cannot be found as properly representing some aspect of reality, with, in this case only the use of the word "lie" being quoted as meaning an unrealized lie sometimes known as "The currently known truth" until Proven otherwise.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If their fudged data were to come to light they would no longer be standing.


Not always true. Often the person bringing the "fudged data" to light is ridiculed back into obscurity because the standing of the "fudger" is widely recognized in comparisome to the person calling their bluff.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is called "Blaming the victim".


Victims are dead. Survivors live. Those who blindly accept the hormone injected beef patties and the chlorine bleach swimming pools and drinking water as safe and normal products without question are not exhibiting good survival skills. At some point, they become victims of their own complacency. Sure, sometimes the calvary comes to the rescue. And sometimes not. There is no blame in this. It is a simple fact.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
You have to explain what you mean about investigating the claims of artists, because I don't see Art as a sitution where any particular claims are made that need investigating.


When an artist depicts a camel with three humps, this is an invitation to believe the artist or to go to source and find out the truth for ourselves. When Da Vinci quickly slapped a landscape behind his Mona Lisa, it was not a true representation of an Italian landscape, yet, being Italian, and raised in Italy, he had a good sense with regard to the general lay of the land and offered a quick representation of an ideal landscape to compliment the smooth gradations that made up the depiction of the merchant's daughter, Mona Lisa. And so, this landscape would not be questioned by the average Italian because it resembled areas that had already been seen in their travels about the country.


Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How would the average member of society get access to any researcher's data in order to check it?
That is part of the challenge presented to the "average member of society". In fact, I believe some average members of society have relatively recently created something called the "Freedom Of Information Act" to facilitate this challenge. In the case of private companies the challenge is further complicated, but not impossible.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
6,265
1,280
Originally posted by quantumcarl
from R.Parsons:
You mischaracterized, somewhat, what Mr. Robin Parsons said about artists. More about the Art issue below.
Not always true. Often the person bringing the "fudged data" to light is ridiculed back into obscurity because the standing of the "fudger" is widely recognized in comparisome to the person calling their bluff.
I see what you're saying here. This is an explanation for why the fudging doesn't come to light more often. Nevertheless when it does come to light the person loses their standing.
Victims are dead. Survivors live.
Bert Gummer? I'm not sure what is behind the unusually strong assertion here, but victim does not equal dead. I went out to lunch at a restaurant today. Thinking back I must have seen three or four dozen people I could have victimized in one way or another had I been so inclined. If I had it would be my fault, my responsibility, my guilt, not theirs. This is what I'm saying. Do you feel all those people were foolish to leave their homes unarmed?
Those who blindly accept the hormone injected beef patties and the chlorine bleach swimming pools and drinking water as safe and normal products without question are not exhibiting good survival skills.
Reasonable precautions are always in order. Personally, I have a certain range of things I'm particularly carefull about while not being very concerned about other things. I find most people to be like this. Their "thing" is usually idiosynchratic. No one can be so circumspect as to avoid all dangers. Everyone dies in the end.
At some point, they become victims of their own complacency..."
"...There is no blame in this. It is a simple fact.
This is quite a bit less severe than your original:
When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.
When an artist depicts a camel with three humps, this is an invitation to believe the artist or to go to source and find out the truth for ourselves.
No. If you react to a three-humped camel this way, you have misunderstood. No self respecting artist would paint a three-humped camel unless he was just about positive everyone who saw the painting was going to know camels have one hump, or two. A three humped camel would be about humor, surprise, shock value, strangeness, any one of a number of things except deception.
"When Da Vinci quickly slapped a landscape behind his Mona Lisa..."

I didn't get what you were pointing at with this part.
"...something called the "Freedom Of Information Act"
Shred and redact.

-Zooby
 
Last edited:
  • #30
755
0
Zoobyshoe wrote:
I went out to lunch at a restaurant today. Thinking back I must have seen three or four dozen people I could have victimized in one way or another had I been so inclined.
Weird.
 
  • #31
Government scientists follow ( conform to) the rules of of institutional policies -- Team Player.

Even Independent Scientists depend on Government "grants" for their research funding.

So, here you have Politics competing with the bend of creative "visions" produced by science. You have a scientist who knows what is good within his vision but you have it under-penned by the policies.

I do not think Artists or a Scientist practicing an Art form would have to deal with that factor.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Weird.
What's weird is that you don't seem to think that you too can be(come) "a victim" Personally I don't like the word either, but I none the less realize that, in cases/circumstances in my life, I have been one, and not of 'my choice' either.

Heck I was groped by a woman once, after I had been very verbally very clear that I didn't want to do that with her, didn't like it, but I was put into a "victims position". (it ain't that hard)
 
  • #33
It is written that if you do not give out "sexual" signals,

-- as in interested in such things --

.....you will not attract other's attention in such a way.

So, who is guilty of manipulating the event -- the hidden manifesto or the responding groper ?
 
  • #34
Originally posted by iron~orchid
It is written that if you do not give out "sexual" signals,

-- as in interested in such things --

.....you will not attract other's attention in such a way.
WOW CRAP!
So, who is guilty of manipulating the event -- the hidden manifesto or the responding groper ?
SHE WAS!! there was NO HIDDEN MANIFESTO, apparently you are not all that aware of just what can be done to you are you, of little actual experiance perhaps?
 
  • #35
I would say the right blend of energy for projection of sexual signals is an art and a science.

Yes, it must take a lot of experience to perfect'.

Rather than turning it and everyone else off totally, a few trans-formative memories should be held in high esteem during the creation of self values.

Thank you for your view on the subject as I am aware that
it may be the other way around

-- the guy is not manipulating the woman -- !

Women have used the manipulative advantage of knowing about
a male's drive for the temporary sensory peak of the act of sex
through hundreds of years of cultural evolution.

For instance, all great leaders throughout mankind's existence have had emotional
appeal as their source of power.

Women are drawn to the public figure, author, artist, scientist or leader of what what by their own needs to touch and be touched by the one who inspires such strong emotion within them.

One once told me that people are drawn to someone who exudes confidence.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by iron~orchid
(SNIP) -- the guy is not manipulating the woman -- ! (SNoP)
Nice of you to recognize my "perfection", but, not to disappoint you to much, alas, I am NOT perfect.

But, by God's grace, well practised at some things, including saying "NO", not just recieving it!

Thanks for recognizing the principal, it's lack has been what had been driving.
 
  • #37
755
0
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What's weird is that you don't seem to think that you too can be(come) "a victim"
You haven't a clue about what "I seem to think".

My comment "weird" is about zippy's way of thinking, concerning how he could "victimize" 15 people or some bull***.

Its too juvenile to even go there.

I suggest that people who think the way zippy thinks reserve the experience for themselves and try jumping off a very high cliff.

I also suggest that you and I.O. start a thread on sexual harrassment.

You have de-railed this thread which pertains to the difference between art and science.

This tread does not pertain to victimization or any of the other topics you, zippy and I.O. have selectively distilled out of it.

But, that's just my take, remember?

Have a nice day.
 
  • #38
You are very bossy and griping and harassing, yourself, Master Carl.

I believe the mention of victim brought on the subject of sexuality and -- beg to differ -- but this subject is very much a part of much of the Artistic world and the Scientific world. IT is all in how YOU relate to it.

It is also a part of Politics which I mentioned is a bit in control of scientific research. How far can you go in your creativity if you do not recognize the signals and strings of manipulation being pulled ?
 
  • #39
.........

It boils down to:

FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

-- an Artist has this --

-- a Scientist does not --

Therefore,
as stated previously in this thread......

"Physicists may write poetry but poets don't do physics. "

...... Scientists have to have an outlet for such

FREEDOM of EXPRESSION (since the scientific vision is within a controlled environment) and they may use ART as such an outlet.

Thus, in my closing statement, I conclude that there is a carryover of Science becoming Art but not of Art becoming Science.
 
  • #40
Carl the expression "Seem(s) to think" is a basis for the projection of my perception of your words, back out of me, seeking clarification from you, if I have read you wrong.

So telling me that I have no idea what you "seem to think" is about as, well, I'll stop there, because what you "seem to think" can only be framed by someone outside/aside of/from you!

The victim thing evolved out of something you stated, and followed through on with the second statement of "Victims are dead......(SNoP)", or have you forgotten your role in all of this?
 
  • #41
755
0
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The victim thing evolved out of something you stated, and followed through on with the second statement of "Victims are dead......(SNoP)", or have you forgotten your role in all of this?
When someone has started a thread that explores the various ways each individual uses a word, we can disscuss this a little more.

When I use the word 'victim' it refers to the people who died as a result of an incident.

When a person has been raped, groped or "met Arnold" and lived, they usually prefer to use the word "survivor".

As for I.O.'s closing remarks:
If stating the obivous is considered "bossy" or "harrassment"... it is within your rights to think and say so.

As far as I know, the Freedom of Speech section of both Canada's and the US's Consitution and Charter of Rights provides for both Artists and Scientists and all other citizens of those countries.

Have a nice life.
 
  • #42
Dear Quantumcarl person

The words bossy and harassment were NOT in my closing remarks.

So YOU obviously overlooked anything I said or any point I made in my posts -- other than what pertained to you personally.
 
  • #43
FZ+
1,561
3
It is also a part of Politics which I mentioned is a bit in control of scientific research. How far can you go in your creativity if you do not recognize the signals and strings of manipulation being pulled ?
This is pretty much irrelevant, as a differentiating quality of art and science.

Artists don't live on air. To each piece of art there is a religion, a society, a customer, a critic, a sponsor. To make a work of art, almost all artists must cater to the respective tastes - creativity much be tethered by petty opinions, and indeed is sourced from the same times and surroundings. But in both science and art, there are exceptions - artists who transcended their period, and scientists who defied them.

The existence of science is dependent on freedom of expression. An oppressed science is not a science, but politics dressed up in pretty words.
 
  • #44
6,265
1,280
Originally posted by FZ+ The existence of science is dependent on freedom of expression. An oppressed science is not a science, but politics dressed up in pretty words.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Science makes progress, even under totalitarian rule. What would be the difference between this and science produced otherwise?
 
  • #45
How can manipulation be irrelevant when a scientist is restricted or fully dependent on corporate or government funding ?
 
  • #46
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
8
What happens is tht the kind of science the bosses are in favor of or indifferent to will flourish, and the kind they hate or want to manipulate will die off.

In the USSR, Lysenkoism, an uncientific form of biology, was the official line. And biology in the Soviet Union withered.

On the other hand physics was the darling child because of H-bombs and rockets and it flourished, so did mathematics, which the commissars had not much opinion about.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Quantumcarl
When a person has been raped, groped or "met Arnold" and lived, they usually prefer to use the word "survivor". Carl has spoken!
As far as I know, the Freedom of Speech section of both Canada's and the US's Consitution and Charter of Rights provides for both Artists and Scientists and all other citizens of those countries.
And that is the other remedy "The Law" affords, is to sue people who lie, and therefore mislead, and make them pay for there lies.

Then again, as it is evident in your signature Carl, you seem to like presenting item(s) of art work that are the creations of others, without accreditation to them, so no wonder you attempt to justify yourself in the manner that you do!
Tank's Carl!
 
  • #48
You know one thing about QCarl's..........

"People use art as one way of measuring, mimicking and studying nature."

"People use science as another way of measuring, mimicking and studying nature."

......This is true ....... People have to mimick nature.

-- as nature creates it's own art and science --

For instance, a natural plant extract that people have learned to use in some type remedy has total freedom of expression for a naturally occurring substance such as this extract material cannot be patented.

Thus, nature is mimicked with a resulting synthetic pharmaceutical invented to duplicate the active component of the plant.

It is nice to know that nature as an art or science cannot be manipulated by government or the corporate world. It can just be destroyed -- perhaps out of jealousy due to the non-control factor.
 
  • #49
6,265
1,280
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What happens is tht the kind of science the bosses are in favor of or indifferent to will flourish, and the kind they hate or want to manipulate will die off.
True, and it is the same for art in regimes like that, but isn't a process of restricting here, encouragement there always at work in any state, if not for political, then for economic reasons, even if it's quite a bit subtler?
 
  • #50
creativity

It's common to make a difference between science and art. Why some people don't agree with this, has to do with the idea that an artist has a kind of creativity that a scientist lacks. They want to be called an artistic scientist, but they are 'only' working in a original way.

Art is pushing ideas in a fysical presentation.
Science is pulling ideas from a fysical world.
 

Related Threads on Is Science An Art?

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
116
Views
30K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top