Questioning Science

[saphera]

Science....rational, questioning, proving......Left brain thinking...... male....
Belief......knowing, creative...... right brain thinking.......female

[treegod]

We could say that science doesn't represent what reality is but the limit of what humans know about reality.

In a way scientific theory is limited to the human imagination. Without imagination we cannot have science. But compared to the artistic imagination, art seeks to embellish on reality whereas science seeks to conform its imagination to reality, it is in a process of becoming "realistic." But maybe in an eternal regression sort of way. Getting nearer but never quite there.

[Aylyn]

Science....rational, questioning, proving......Left brain thinking...... male....
Belief......knowing, creative...... right brain thinking.......female

I do not think you can classify it as such. A lot of science is tied in intuition, or you would not have the leaps in discoveries. Remeber that Kekule saw the benzol ring in a dream, and only then understood how the chemistry worked. What science is, though, is putting your intuitions and imaginations to the test of harsh reality, and discarding it when reality does not conform.

Which is also not quite what treegod describes: Scientists base their imagination of what they know about reality, and then develop it from there. It can take on quite a flight of fantasy, just remember that many scientists are also good science fiction authors, and the two genres are always interacting. They are by no means restricted in their imagination, any more oir less than an artist. But an artist can lean back and claim artistic licence when producing something that does not agree with reality, while a scientist will always test against reality

[treegod]

Scientists base their imagination of what they know about reality, and then develop it from there. It can take on quite a flight of fantasy, just remember that many scientists are also good science fiction authors, and the two genres are always interacting. They are by no means restricted in their imagination, any more oir less than an artist. But an artist can lean back and claim artistic licence when producing something that does not agree with reality, while a scientist will always test against reality

Quite

Stephan Harding wrote a book, Animate Earth, and in it he describes how the Jung's psychological functions, sensing, feeling, thinking and intuition can all be used in science. I'd recommend reading it.

[saphera]

We could say that science doesn't represent what reality is but the limit of what humans know about reality.

In a way scientific theory is limited to the human imagination. Without imagination we cannot have science. But compared to the artistic imagination, art seeks to embellish on reality whereas science seeks to conform its imagination to reality, it is in a process of becoming "realistic." But maybe in an eternal regression sort of way. Getting nearer but never quite there.

I was going to say ... it is the initial idea or imaginative spark or impulse ...a right brain state... that kicks into action the questioning and need to prove.. the left brain state... the scientific partner to belief...
working together creating the divine partnership and crystallizing reality.

The God - Goddess partnership....in a way.

But without that spark to start with....just an eternal loop... never getting anywhere....or creating anything....just more questions.
saphera

[treegod]

A bit like...

"Science grows from imaginary models in the mind and is sharpened by measurements that check the fit of the models with reality." James Lovelock

[treegod]

Does art have a place in science?

[Aylyn]

Why does there seem to be this impression that artists and scientists are opposites? There is a crossover: Science is inspired by art, art by science. The university I work in has a big life sciences department, as well as a big art department. We have lots of art hanging in the corridors of our labs, many of it inspired by the science: Images of cells, genes, networks. It works together, not against each other.

[Frog]

Does art have a place in science?

It's a deep question really as it all depends on how you quantify art (now there's a science term!)

MC Escher makes use of a lot of science in his art (reflection, refraction, tessalation, perception, etc). Monet's art has now been explained becuase of science (his eye sight). Hockney's photographic work is only available through science (the development of the camera). Limerics, haiku are also scientifically interesting because they follow set rules to how things work.

However, art occupies a far broader spectrum than that which (in my opinion) goes outside of science and leads towards unquantifiable elements that effectively confound science. Some examples:

Rothko is scientifically interesting (large colour blocks, similar design) - but ultimately boring. Pollock is an exercise in scientific chaos - but (for me) artistically a bit too random. Picasso - scientifically interesting (the breakdown of the recognisable through misplacement), but for me, random cr*p. Constable, Turner - both impressive pieces of art - but scientifically?

Musically - Stock, Aitken and Waterman make (scientifically) well developed, markatable records. However artisitically they are (to me) boring bland music by non-entities. Motorhead, Rush, Iron Maiden - artistically exciting, lively, interesting; scientifically (piping the album through a simple oscilloscope) - "noise".


Because what I like to listen, read, watch is not necessarily what someone else likes, IMO it puts this outside something which can be quantified, measured.. i.e not science.

[saphera]

Does art have a place in science?

Or... Does science have a place in art?
I think it is a marriage.
Look at the pixels lining up in their colour patterns in a photograph.....or the shapes of snow flake patterns....beautiful and awsome and yet mathetical.
an art form in a science.
Look at a painting ...the proportions of the shape of it and its compositional components determine whether it is pleasing to view....(mathemetical measures,golden mean divisions are always the most pleasing) ...the attractiveness of the image of a face or a body....proportional measures.
so ....a science in an art form.
The beauty in the formulation or the formulation in the beauty.... maybe the same thing.
saphera

[Merlyn]

Doing the art I do takes a lot of science, chemistry, technology, computer layouts, just about alchemy in a way.
It does all start with an inspired idea, pencil to paper and then often photography of the parts to be painted, pictures of scenery, drawings of all kinds, scanning and layouts in the Corel Draw program.
From there often across the internet to the customer, back & forth.
While that is going on the mechanical end is in process, using tools of all sorts, and then into the paint booth I go.
Paints are parted and mixed, sprayed by highly skilled painters while the air-flow filtering, dust arresting, static arresting and all is dialed in.
The painter must be fed fresh air by a survive air system, wearing a static free suit, and carefully chosen reducers to match air temperature which is controlled within a chosen margin.
Then often very fine air brush is used while computer cut mastics are designed by vector plotting, cut by a computer controlled vynal cutter, so that no razor ever touches the paint, adhered with a low tack mastic. Special bonder clears are used and all is wet sanded with 660, 1200 and even 2000 grit papers.
Once the art is finished and the parts are clear coated, they are infrared cured at 140 degrees to aspirate all the reducers and harden the clear.

and the result;
http://www.customcyclestudio.com

Very much every science short of blasting a rocket to the moon.

[Explorer]

If you use a scientific method to test the scientific method then you have already built in the assumption that the scientific method is a valid way of testing. And because of that, the answer will always be 'yes'. So it is a useless exercise. I've seen similar useless exercises to proof the existence of god, by first asuming that god exists and then go a lot of complicated reasoning, ending with the conclusion that he must exist. This is the domain of metaphysics and philosphy, not science.

Science is just science, a way to discover factual truths about the physical world. It is not a religion. I agree with Lily.

But from a human perspective, if you think that the results of science, the factual truths about the physical world, is everything that counts, then you've taken a narrow dead end street. Just like when you think that this life is merely a waiting area for an imagined afterlife. Both things have nothing to do with science or religion, but with human tunnel vision.

So, it is silly to bash science, that is like fighting windmills, and we all know how ecologically irresponsible it is to fight windmills these days .
I think it is better to focus on re-enchanting the world, to add meaning, inspiration and magic to the mix, also to the factual truths that science brings us. Through experiencing life as full and imaginative as possible.

[Merlyn]

Hi Explorer,
Well said.
Science can indeed be gerrymandered.

It is useful for many things, like the example of the artwork I do. It does however very often boil down to earth, air, fire and water for me.
Once the science is exhausted, and it's ability to create finds it's limits, then is when nothing short of the artist's hand must find it's way.

[Fox of the Oaks]

Well said Nico, magic and re-enchantment.

My response is long, and bound to stir some wonderful conversation, I hope. Note I have 'invoked' the Pan smiley below to support my gently outlandish comments.






Fragrance of flowers before theory for hours,
The magic of mathematics meandering might,
Like old rivers roaming over seas of old time,
Openings to wonder, mingling, tingling,
Eternal beings dreaming realistically sublime.



May I raise the question, why is there often a presumed difference between endeavours such as science, art, religion, et al?

Many have and do talk about the relationship, marriage, or connection between science/art/religion etc, that is great.

Yet, often, we are in a way duped, into a kind of divide between them all before we know it, whereby we must choose a side, and an ensuring battle as to which one is the best, the 'Truth', the winner - so that 'me and my tribe' can cry victory.
Do we not see that humankind has for millennia been stuck in this kind of mentality, basically of warring for their own viewpoint, own interests, own validity, own answers to their deeper spiritual needs.

Have you ever tried debating in favour of a viewpoint that you disagree with?

Why are they (science/art/religion etc) not a complete and integrated unity of knowledge already?
Why do we less so consider them to all be leading to the same peak of One Great Mountain of Truth?
because there are many mountains on Earth...?

Surely if the Cosmos can contain them all for us to play with, then they have some basis of truth - Yet in a limited 'tunnel vision', we do not see that, we want to see that our tunnel is the one with the light at the end, because we have invested our being in becoming relieved of our pain through it (or whatever else may drive us to 'know the truth' beyond all else that is false around us in our artificial environments of form and idea).

I think each serves it's place in a particular context, and that greater integration of them is the only way for far greater truth to be discovered.

If we explore the world through science, we see that in the world.
If we explore it through art, we see that.
If we explore it through religion, we see that.

Is Science then Truth? Is Art? or religion?
Science is Science, Art is Art, Religion is Religion... Philosophy is Philosophy... What is Truth? Nobody really knows, we just all like to talk like we do know (something at least), but it's ultimately a Mystery at the end of the day - not to mention each and every day.

What if we were to explore the world through each and every paradigm until they all spoke the same language?

The Renaissance apparently came close to such a culture of a universal view. I would say the closer we get to Truth, the greater range of different paradigms, systems, beliefs and ideas, and practical endeavours we can embrace.

Science has been born in time and will one day be no more - it (as the scientific method) will change completely to how it is today, eventually, just as all other motions of human culture come and go.
Perhaps science, art, religion etc, are closer to world-spirits that continually reincarnate in different forms and different ages as protectors, teachers, guides and transformers of humanity. Something deeper is at work in the human psyche than we would commonly know.

Did Science give birth (create) the Universe? No, humanity created Science. The Universe created humanity. We spend our time looking at our compass and map of something we know an infinitesimal drop about, so certain are we to find our way, but why were we ever lost?

Our progressive and evolutionary paradigm (due largely to the Industrial revolution, and perhaps Darwin...) makes us think things are improving... yet everything in Nature cycles, rise and fall, rise and fall... it's a process so maddening for a solely rational patriarchy that we needed something stable to keep us from vomiting war and slavery upon our own kind. By becoming a system of finding fixed and objective Laws, Science seems to want us to go beyond this cosmic rocking motion of Nature, wanting us to grow up, out of the crib, so that we humans can learn bigger things - like the minute details of the inside of a rat, the precise frequencies of the Goddess Iris (commonly known as the rainbow), or the phonetics of a flourishing and fertile river tribe, who lived enchanted lives on the banks of time. Yet science brings our ecology to reel in pain at our scientific passion to simplify life through technology and simultaneously complicate it through developing ever more complicated understandings of life. Meanwhile we seem more and more interested in economics and we are still unable to communicate with those rats we look inside, as equals, like in the old tales.

Indigenous people, animals, nature spirits and so on do not follow a materialistic science developed by the rational human collective since the middle ages (or perhaps earlier antiquity) - as far as I know, although maybe some Gnomes do . Those not 'able' to embrace Science seem more to suffer more from Science than to prosper. To understand what they understand (and they do have knowledge), are we to need to translate their knowledge through our scientific filter, in order to understand it? We would be missing the point of having an open minded inquiry into Truth, which surely comes before any particular method of coming to Truth.

Science aims to be as objective as possible, yet it is still a lens to view the world with, as quantum mechanics has for some time shown, and developments in psychology are beginning to reveal. Humans are beginning to see the limits of our 'faith' in empiricism it seems. Yet that is a great blessing, because we can then have the chance to stop falling into a tunnel vision tribal mentality, and perhaps another more universal integration will occur in our small blue sphere's history.

Being a somewhat pragmatic mystic, I do believe in the need for re-enchantment of the world, how ever that occurs is less important, be it art, religion, science, magic, or listening to children and old people . As long as the results (preferably painlessly), come about, of a world of greater love, wisdom and creativity, then so be it.

I'm not against Science, it's one fabulous appendix to the greater human world.

Now, I acknowledge all I have written is a product of my 'lens' on reality, a tiny drop of, hopefully, light. I hope to learn from any responses.

Alternatively, perhaps something other than all I have said is true?... just perhaps...
As Buddhists may say, "The Buddha's teachings are merely a raft to cross the river [of suffering], why would you carry the raft around with you after crossing?"

[treegod]

Pine Raven, I think you're right, things like religion, science and art are all viable expressions of how we view the world. Lenses that have the potential to enhance our experience of reality.

That last quote from the Buddha I know well And I was thinking of another quote from Jesus Christ "Man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man." You can easily replace the word Sabbath for religion, science or art. They are tools for humanity, humanity is not a tool for them.

[Explorer]

Science aims to be as objective as possible, yet it is still a lens to view the world with, as quantum mechanics has for some time shown, and developments in psychology are beginning to reveal. Humans are beginning to see the limits of our 'faith' in empiricism it seems.

And there you fall in your own hole ;-).
Science is not meant to be an all encompassing world view, it is simply method of investigation. It shows only part of reality, the physical factional testable part. It is 'tunnel vision' by design, a lens that only shows part of reality. Spirituality is 'tunnel vision' by design also, it only works in specific area's.
(I don't mean the all knowing religions, they are of no interest when it comes to finding truth, they serve other functions).

These two views, science and spirituality, are not competing, they are not opposites. There are sometimes paradoxes, but these are just entry points into the matter to find truth, not contradictions. If somebody thinks that science and spirituality contradict then that person has found an error in his or her understanding. And as such an opportunity to discover the truth. But most of us won't grab the opportunity, because it is a lot easier to hold on to our convictions.

[Nikki 2]

These two views, science and spirituality, are not competing, they are not opposites. There are sometimes paradoxes, but these are just entry points into the matter to find truth, not contradictions. If somebody thinks that science and spirituality contradict then that person has found an error in his or her understanding.

I agree with Treegod (if I have understood him right) - How can "truth" contradict "truth", or even be dependant upon the nature/perspective of the way in which it is viewed? If science and spirituality appear to contradict then surely, either one is wrong, or it is the question itself that is flawed . . . .

[DJ Droood]

God is the boogyman under the bed. Science is the flashlight in a child's hand.

[Merlyn]

If somebody thinks that science and spirituality contradict then that person has found an error in his or her understanding.

That would depend on who funded the science research grant, and or who wrote the book on spirituality...
Science and religion were both in agreement that the beginning of mankind was with Adam & Eve once upon a time..

I am not sure we have really progressed to far from the apple tree just yet.

[Explorer]

These two views, science and spirituality, are not competing, they are not opposites. There are sometimes paradoxes, but these are just entry points into the matter to find truth, not contradictions. If somebody thinks that science and spirituality contradict then that person has found an error in his or her understanding.

I agree with Treegod (if I have understood him right) - How can "truth" contradict "truth", or even be dependant upon the nature/perspective of the way in which it is viewed? If science and spirituality appear to contradict then surely, either one is wrong, or it is the question itself that is flawed . . . .

I think you are quoting me here, not Treegod, but he probably agrees