| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.
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 around for years, she just used borrowed scientific research
into the human brain and put an explanation to why those techniques worked.
> 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.
What would that be? You keep piping up with that line, but it is nothing
more than an emotional appeal.
> 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).
A philosopher isn't a scientist. If philosophy is robbing you of a
philosphical idea, then the problem resides entirely in the philosphic
realm, so why all the discussion of science?
>
> 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.
The final argument of the religious is invariably to reduce the opposition
to its own terms. Belief in god is blind. It is a matter of faith.
Science isn't a matter of faith (no, don't start in on you have to have
faith in your senses - science doesn't trust those either). Science isn't a
god because it isn't a matter of faith. Further, science doesn't claim that
it is good for everything - those are words constantly put into its mouth by
the religious so it can knock down a straw man.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) And let me mention that a spider web is, to me, quite the piece of art as well. Leftist thinking or Rightist thinking does not an artist make, nor intelligence or stupidity a defining factor for art, or for that matter, even *human*. I find (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
