Interesting response. By “measurement” what do you mean? My daughter is a bronze sculptor. She makes lots of measurements in her quest to create her art.
Interesting response. By “measurement” what do you mean? My daughter is a bronze sculptor. She makes lots of measurements in her quest to create her art.
Wes
Wes,
It is true that some artists do make measurments when they work but not nearly as many as scientists do. My father’s hobby was oil painting and I don’t remember him ever measuring anything.
Measurement is clearly important. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) said in his Popular Lectures and Addresses, 1891-1894: “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.” I used this very quotation in my Ph.D. Dissertation. It also appears in a very good by Panjabi and White, Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine.
But measurement is not, I think, the most important difference. The key difference is testing of hypothses.
Measurement is clearly important. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) said in his Popular Lectures and Addresses, 1891-1894 “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.”
Wes
Wes,
I agree with Lord Kelvin that if something can’t be expressed in numbers it’s not science. Of course there has to be peer testing of a hypothesis and they will need “the numbers” in order to carry out the testing.
Bob
Of course there can be considerable intellectual appeal to some literary works. I recenty read OF HUMAN BONDAGE by Somerset Maugham and he presents existential and agnostic experience dramatically and well, provoking much thought for me and discussion for my book discussion group. In reading about Maugham I found he wrote in his non-fiction that atheists and agnostics both act as if God does ot exist, an obvious point perhaps but not one I had realized before.
Literature can lead to a lot of learning not just emotion. As a former Yankee and Faulkner fan, married to a Mississipian, interested in the South I find I learn a lot from him though “Since feeling is first, who pays any attention to the syntax of things?"e.e. cummings. Well I do, you have to with the mosre difficult Faulkner, but feeling IS first. I guess.
Cheers,
Alan
[quote author="alanchurch"] In reading about Maugham I found he wrote in his non-fiction that atheists and agnostics both act as if God does ot exist, an obvious point perhaps but not one I had realized before.
Alan
Alan,
Maugham was wrong. As an agnostic I do not act as if God does not exist.
Bob
You wrote: <Thanks for the topic.> You are welcome.
You wrote: <...but feeling IS first. I guess.> Absolutely! I have come to think that art is about emotion first, then intellectual content. Of course, as you point out, art can have both. Perhaps the “best” art has both. I suspect that if there was no emotional content it would not be art. I am very sure my scientific papers are not art and they are devoid of emotion. Well, as devoid as I can make them. (Emotion in scientific research is another branch of this discussion.)
As I understand how memory may work we seem to remember things best when they have an emotional “tag.” (Alan, is that correct?) I also consider human beings mostly emotional creatures with a very small ability to think. It is easier to emote than to think rationally. Perhaps a reason for lower interest in math and science than in music, dance, and entertainment in general. And perhaps a reason for more interest in things religoius, spiritual, other worldly, etc, etc.
Wes.
In your response to Alan you wrote
“I also consider human beings mostly emotional creatures with a very small ability to think. It is easier to emote than to think rationally. Perhaps a reason for lower interest in math and science than in music, dance, and entertainment in general. And perhaps a reason for more interest in things religoius, spiritual, other worldly, etc, etc.
Regards, Wes
Wes,
I think you are correct about this. I have belonged to a science chat group for many years. We meet every evening to talk about science and technology. It is a very small group that is in existence for about seven years. We would like to have more members but it seems that most chatters prefer to go to rooms where they can be entertained. The rooms that usually attract many people are the music rooms, the religion rooms, the flirt rooms and rooms where movies and other forms of entertainment are discussed.
It has become obvious to us that most new people that visit our room are looking to be entertained. When they realize that our room is a room for serious discussion they leave and rarely return.
We have come to accept the fact that our room will never have many members. The reason being, I think, is because most people feel that science isn’t very exciting and not much fun.
Bob
Bob, you wrote
We have come to accept the fact that our room will never have many members. The reason being, I think, is because most people feel that science isn’t very exciting and not much fun.
Bob
also there are probably not many capable of such discussion. I’ve not looked much but the 2 or 3 chat rooms I’ve been were of very little interest for me. the level was low. this forum is an exception. for learning I prefer reading usually. But perhaps I should expand. Where can I find some interesting chat rooms? I’d like to take a look at the one you mentioned.
Bob, you wrote,
“You may know some agnostics who behave that way but I don’t know of any. And, as I said before, I don’t.”
Please tell me more. I think of agnostics, those who are unsure about the existence of god, as unreligious and behaving as if there were no god. But your statement suggests, again the obvious, that there is a range of degree of belief from strong belief to strong atheism. Of course .So some agnostics, unlike me and my friends, may go to church, read the bible, and pray but be unsure about the existence of god and think of themselves as agnostics.
Please tell me what YOU mean by agnostic and how your position and behavior is different from mine. Thanks.
Alan
You wrote: <...but feeling IS first. I guess.> Absolutely! I have come to think that art is about emotion first, then intellectual content. Of course, as you point out, art can have both. Perhaps the “best” art has both. I suspect that if there was no emotional content it would not be art. I am very sure my scientific papers are not art and they are devoid of emotion. Well, as devoid as I can make them. (Emotion in scientific research is another branch of this discussion.)
As I understand how memory may work we seem to remember things best when they have an emotional “tag.” (Alan, is that correct?)
I also consider human beings mostly emotional creatures with a very small ability to think. It is easier to emote than to think rationally. Perhaps a reason for lower interest in math and science than in music, dance, and entertainment in general. And perhaps a reason for more interest in things religoius, spiritual, other worldly, etc, etc.
Regards, Wes[/quote
Yes it is easier to emote than think rationally. As we know critical thinking does not come naturally and most people are very bad at it. see article in current Skepical Inquirer. Thinking is so much emotionally determined.
I think research has shown that emotion is an aid in memory (though certain kinds and intensity may lead to forgetting). Often we remember only that we liked or disliked a movie and nothing else about it.
I don’t know if we have a small ability to think
but since most people don’t think very well they are unsuited to think about more rigorous things like math and science. They can enage in other areas and believe they are making sense when they may not be. In the areas of religion, paranormal,etc. they can believe anything they like without evidence.
Tangentially,research has found that among prominent creative artists, people with affective (emotional as opposed to thought and behavioral) disorders such as bipolar disorder(manic depressive) are over represented. Those with affective disorders are under represented among scientists. One reason seems to be that those with affective disorders cannot sustain the effort needed to produce world class scientific work but can produce great works of art, which don’t take as long. See Touched with Fire by Kay Redfield Jamison and The Price of Greatness by Arnold Ludwig.
