In a message dated 7/23/02 8:06:44 AM GMT Daylight Time,
andrea.sosio@italtel.it writes:
> Hello Squonkstail, just a quick intrusion. Yours is a convincing reasoning
> about art and science.
> But taking a closer look at great scientists: isn't it really true that you
> can still speak about juvenilia and the subsequent emerging of a new voice?
> In fact, juvenilia will not mean that the scientist repeats something that
> was already said. Juvenilia will be results that are highly influenced by
> the already settled scientific framework (e.g., minor or not so minor
> results within an existing theory); hence, not so revolutionary. And
> likewise for artists: a composer's juvenilia will be *new* music that
> nevertheless reflects, in style, previous compositions. A new voice emerges
> (both in science and art) when one breaks the framework. Also, you wouldn't
> call any scientist that discovers something new a "new voice", just like
> not every painter or composer is really a "new voice". A PhD student that
> provides a new proof for a minor theorem embedded somewhere in this or that
> larger theory isn't really as much a new voice as, say, Einstein. Likewise,
> a rock group that does, say, Led Zeppelin covers, and now and then write
> their own song in Led Zeppelin's style aren't a new voice. I think the
> analogies between art and science are much deeper than one expect them to
> be (especially due to the myth of science as "objective truth"). In my
> life, I did scientific research for a while and I - kind of - know. What
> you do experiment with, what you do write down in a scientific paper, the
> words you use, etc., all of these are highly influenced from aestethics -
> and aesthetics is tightly bound to tradition. Truth is more like a
> *constraint* you are expected to respect than the leading force of your
> scientific inquiry. Andrea
>
>
>
Hi Andrea,
I like what you say.
I agree particularly about breaking the framework?
Transferring this into my previous post, a framework breaking scientist may
be ostracised for having the audacity to challenge his respected peers? (I am
thinking of Braithwait and his gyroscope - gravity lecture that was the first
in the history of the Royal society not to be published. Braithwait invented
the linear induction motor.)
A framework breaking philosopher, (like Pirsig)? is largely ignored.
A framework breaking author is hailed as a creative and dynamic new force?
Pirsig has been accepted far more in literary circles than in philosophy
circles? (There are lots of literary courses exploring ZMM but not many
philosophy ones?) And his suggestion that causation and probability could be
replaced by value is simply laughed at by science oriented individuals as it
strikes deep into the Truth constraint you highlight?
These framework breakers are thin in the turbulent air while many science
researchers plod in slow degrees? I should imagine the viscosity generated by
truth constraint at ground level can feel rather suffocating if one does not
enjoy the measured approach?
I feel we agree that on its best level, science and art are indeed the same?
Is creationism more artistic than evolution?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST