| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > The other side (anyway, my side) has been to state time and time again, that
> > science is wonderful for what it does, but cannot encompass *everything*, as
> > shown by, imho, the impeccable logic presented--there are concepts and
> > ideals that exist outside science and not once has *that* issue been
> > properly dealt with. The discussion string comes to a halt and a new easier
> > target coems up (a la morality).
>
> OK David, I wasn't trying to wriggle away from your point. And maybe I'm just
> slow, but I really don't get the impeccable logic that you're presenting.
> Let's focus on this one really small idea for a bit. What is it that to your
> way of thinking is outside the realm of scientific inquiry, that I (or others)
> have been ignoring?
>
> Do you agree that the scientific method is a good tool for investigating
> _anything_ that can be perceived? That would be my assertion.
>
> Chris
Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method.
Art maybe made of physical properties such as clay, rock, dyes(paint) on
canvas, whatever. However, most artists say they were 'inspired', whether
by a muse or something. Science can understand what makes up the art, but
it cannot give us a point by point method for producing art. If it could,
we'd all be Picasso's. I mean, there was that computer program on that
website to help you make your own <can't remember artist with the lines and
the coloured squares> and it was a neat thing. And that can help me make a
LEGO mosaic and I can say that's art, and, to me, it is. It won't be art to
my dad, though.
Music, (even has the 'muse' right in the very word)--all those notes a
symphony plays--scientific method can separate and analyse waves on ear
drums and can say how the instruments are made and this is how and why they
operate, but can scientists analyse 'Why have music?' 'how is it inspired?'
'how did Mozart make all those scores--i mean, we know he was paid to, and
Shakespeare was paid to make his plays--probably neither had the vaguest
notion that their works would last for hundreds of years. Inspired--where'd
the inspiration come from? I don't know. I really don't. I dunno if it
comes from God, or from 'the muses', or from a little portion of the brain,
that, if removed, they would lose their inspiration.
But wouldn't that be cool science. I dunno but I think we would have
removed something more than could be measured by that little hunk of meat.
It's like frontal lobotomies, we have mapped the brain so we could probably
shut people up by removing that part of their brain. Are they less than
what they were before? I don't know, and neither, I may add, do the
scientists. Is a person still a person if they are missing something? I
should hope so! Are they less than the rest of the 'whole' people? Again,
I think so! But my uncle is still missing a leg and he can't play
professional football.
And I don't think, as has been apparently shown here in this very thread,
science can perceive infinite. We don't have to understand, we don't have
to be able to write down a text book of 'Infinity for Dummies', but we can
comprehend that there's something 'outside' what the 5 senses tell us. To
say there isn't anything is robbing us of, well, the infinite. Some
philosopher once said that if it can't be proven to me, it does not exist.
Well philosophy is all well and dandy, but *my* take is that this concept
reduces us, and there's my problem--reductionism. A metaphor would be 'lost
in the translation', which is probably a little better than most of the
metaphors I've been coming up with (sorry 'bout that).
So yes, the bottom line for me is the scientific method is wonderful for
investigating that which can be understood by science (i.e. the physical
universe). To say it's good for *everything* is making science into a god.
That would be my assertion.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Kadinsky? Anyway, read Dr. Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (I believe there is a new edition "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"). She uses numerous techniques for teaching drawing that in fact had been (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| I'm continuting to try to focus us down on this conversation to a relatively few points since we're getting crazy in our post lengths. (...) So the short answer is "yes," right? You do agree with me. Since our senses are physical, anything that can (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) OK David, I wasn't trying to wriggle away from your point. And maybe I'm just slow, but I really don't get the impeccable logic that you're presenting. Let's focus on this one really small idea for a bit. What is it that to your way of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
