First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Which can 'tell the truth' better: Arts or Science?
66185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / UK
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I think that in modern times Science has become the form of knowledge that many would say 'tells the truth' about the world, however I think that the Arts can also give a different form of truth that science can't.

(Examples of what i mean roughly)
Arts: Music, Literature, Paintings, Sculpture, Dance
Science: Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Psychology

Of course this also involves the discussion of different theories of truth and which is the most reliable/ useful/ acceptable.
I'm sure the philosophers of CR could have put this all much better but thats my attempt ^-^
Your thoughts?
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
my kind of topic!
Let's me just say that there are different forms of knowledge and we must be careful not to confuse truth with knowledge.
I'll post more later
< needs to study
Posted 2/2/07
This sounds like a TOK (Theory of Knowledge) question I had in school. I vaguely remember writing an essay on it...
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
dimus3001 Convinced me. Seriously, If i was a mod I would start giving warnings for claims without explication.

I'm currently listening to a book that deals with this topic. Its called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and has been one of the most widely read philosophy books. It is not really academic philosophy text though, more novel with philosophy interspersed.

You guys can get the audio and text here, and recommend you check it out. Give it a chance though, its somewhat slow to start. http://www.bartneck.de/work/researchProjects/pirsig/index.html

He uses the terms classical and romantic to describe these two world views. The book does not get so much into truth. The main question of the book is, "what is quality?" Basically what the branch of Aesthetics deals with. I can write more about the book and the ideas within more later.


I think this is a very difficult topic because its hard to pin down what is really being said, you know, its a vague question. Heck, what is art anyway? As far as your question as to what tells the truth better, lets start with the most historically popular theory of truth, the Correspondence Theory, which roughly states that, p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact. (For non logicals: P stands for a proposition, which is a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false).

Going with that definition, its difficult to understand when we consider music, in what way can something musical could be considered true? Does music really make any statements?

Part of what your getting at is that logic and rationality only goes so far, and, for example, experiencing music is in some way more complete then just telling someone what music is: an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence.

What are the limits of the scientific method?
Posted 2/2/07
Mixing art and truth can also be very ambiguous. Science aims to present the truth as facts in an objective way, but art aims to be personal which means that it will always be subjective. Can truth be subjective, since then everyone will have their own opinions of the truth?

But I think art can also present truthful situations, or create an accurate image of a time/place or person.
66185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / UK
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Ye art seems to show truth in relation to the relativism theory more while science follows strict rules and is reductionist. I do think personal points come into science as well though- through bias or when scientists initially observe something.
3967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 2/2/07

Eros wrote:I'm currently listening to a book that deals with this topic. Its called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and has been one of the most widely read philosophy books. It is not really academic philosophy text though, more novel with philosophy interspersed.


Personally I'd say skip to reading Lila, I found it to be less of a novel and more intellectual. I am not much of a fan of Pirsig, but I do like and agree with his idea of Quality to an extent, but not nearly as much as he does... I just think he's bad at fully explaining things, a little crazy (ha!), and likes money.

Anyway... I think that science is and will help humans understand many truths, truths of the world and truths about themselves (through genetics). The absolute science would mean answers to every question that philosophy has been trying to answer. I think science and philosophy have a happy relationship ahead. And art? I think art may be capable of helping people realize truths about themselves (through making and viewing it), but I think that is as far as truth extends into art.

Umm... there was more to this, but I forgot what I was going to type... >.<;;

Posted 2/2/07

s_j_b wrote:

Ye art seems to show truth in relation to the relativism theory more while science follows strict rules and is reductionist. I do think personal points come into science as well though- through bias or when scientists initially observe something.


But because of the different objectives of science and art, their end results are different. What a scientist initially observes doesnt become the end result of the investigation or experiment, the theory has to be proven beyond first impressions, while thats what art is mainly about, impressions. So if a scientific experiment is done the way it ideally should be, fairly and objectively, then it probably has a more reliable or universally truthful result.
66185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / UK
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
^ well said! I think that equality and lack of 'impresions' is what makes most people think science shows truth.
However it depends what you mean by truth. The theories gained from scientific ideas are more like a form of knowledge than truths according to some theories.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
RE 1917:
Well, ZAMM is free, so... I agree with the bad at fully explaining things, but its hard to realize what he is even trying to explain, so I give him a bit of a break. He does have serious psychological issues. Money part, dunno, doubt he thought the book would be this popular.

"The absolute science would mean answers to every question that philosophy has been trying to answer." Yes this is an interesting point, but I would say more like dissolve then solve. I'm not sure that even if we go as far as we are able, will that remove all ignorance. So, speculative questions and answers may remain.

Agree a bit with the notion of telling truth about oneself. In this way it is a kind of subjective-objective truth. for example, all of our human brains are so similar that we tend to find the same kinds of music relaxing. A alien creature may not however. So asking, is this music relaxing, one is forced to say, typically yes for humans, and (say) typically no for this alien race. What I mean by subjective truth is some kind of conditioned truth. True for one person, but not for another. This is an important point, so I'll restate it. The difference between objective truth and subjective truth is the relativity of subjective truth.

General comments:
Scientific knowledge is considered objective, i.e., observable by its nature.

My problem here is this phrase "art (or science) TELLS us truth". The scientific method is exactly that, methodology for figuring out things. What is art? Wiki: "a product of human creativity." Do products ever really TELL us anything? My milk does not tell me anything, thats for sure. But, I can tell objective things about my milk. Thats my point here, art need not be totally subjective. "Is that an oil painting" -- "why yes it is" (objective) or "Do you find that beautiful" -- "yes" (subjective). On the other hand: "Is that a good painting" -- "What the hell is a good painting?" (my kind of answer ;p)
1217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Art tells the truth of a person's mind and soul, while science tells us why we people can think such things.
1526 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I really have to read some of this literature being brought up, it sounds so interesting!

The only opinion I can give comes from my gut. Science to me, feels like a acquired taste almost. It's as if the only way to retain that knowledge is to be taught it. To study theorums and rules and a basis of explanation for things. Arts feel more natural. As if we were meant to grasp these ethereal things before we were born. ie - a person with perfect pitch is born knowing that the sound of the Note 'A' is labeled as 'A'. Even if the person hasn't been taught the alphabet yet. I don't hear many children spitting out scientific theorums from the womb, not to say there aren't geniuses who can pick it up extremely quickly, but I don't feel it's one of those natural things.

As for the basis for truth. I think truth is different to each person, we just do our best to filter out the bullshit.
66185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / UK
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I suppose it depends on what you define truth to be. If it was by the pragmatic (?) theory then art could tell the truth better than science as it has a use in life. Literature can give ideas on the human condition while works such as Guernica can display true horrors through lies. These could be seen as more 'profitable to our lives’ than, for example, the infinite Pie digits. However this could also prove that science is more usefull than 'fake' works of art as it explains how the world works and gives us technology.
13298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
depends really.
66185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / UK
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
^ umm ok!
What do you think it depends on?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.