First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Which can 'tell the truth' better: Arts or Science?
5943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I studied science at uni so maybe I'm biased. My best friend studied visual arts. I believe science and art complement each other and we need both. I don't see why there needs to be any sort of conflict.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
According to the theory of knowledge (Epistemology) there are basically 3 types of knowledge
1. Knowledge by Acquaintance: A person M knows something or someone X (mauz knows s_j_b) this is the knowledge of personal and direct experience with the objects in the world, our sensations, and our thoughts
2. Competence (skill) Knowledge : A person M knows how to do X. It can be done conscious or unconsciously and one might not be able to explain how one accomplishes a certain skill to others.
3. Propositional (descriptive) Knowledge: A person M knows that P ......(P being a proposition or statement) Propositions have truth value, they are either true or false. when we claim that P is the case, we are claiming that P is true. (I know that Spain is in Europe).
So knowledge entails truth, but what is truth? I like Aristotle's definition:
"To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what it is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true" which translates to : if the facts are as we say they are, our statement is true, if not, they are false. All true statements have one property in common: they correspond to facts.

~From my Philosophy Notes~ (I forgot the book where I copied this from)

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about the correspondence to truth; the view that reality has a certain independent and objective content and a theory is true or false to the degree it correctly states that content. He argues that since we cannot have this sort of relationship to reality, there is no such thing as truth

This is his response to those who argue that the only things that exist are facts:
"No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. we cannot establish any fact 'in itself' Perhaps it's folly to want to do such a thing"

There are no uninterpreted "facts" or "truths" because everything we encounter is seen from one perspective to another. According to Nietzsche, 3 things can be said about perspective: they are unavoidable, false, and yet they are useful

Unavoidable

"There is only a perspective seeing, a perspective knowing" for example, a farmer, a painter and a real state agent would not have the same perspective of a field, one sees it as profit, other in terms of productive land, while the other in terms of artistic value. Perspectives vary depending on our values, purposes, cognitive frameworks etc
.
"there are no facts-in-themselves, for a sense must always be projected into them before they can be facts" This means that even biology, physics, chemistry, etc show us reality through a particular perspective.

They are false
our perspectives are embodied in how we speak "the limits of my language are the limits of my world" (~Wittgenstein) Nietzsche says we are under the illusion that we can "capture" reality with the "net" of our words and concepts. Concepts are more like filters instead of nets, because they shape and distort the material it processes.
"Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another and the concept of 'leaf' is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions"

The problem is that every item in the world and every experience is unique, but we seek to preserve the contents of that experience by relating it to similar ones and then applying verbal labels to the group, these labels become universal concepts and are added to our intellectual inventory so that they can be used again and again to refer to new experiences.
However, universal concepts conceal the originality and individuality of each moment of reality. The dynamic, constantly flowing real world is chopped up into discrete, seemingly identical units that are turned into "concepts mummies" so that they may be shelved into the museum of the intellect. In this way, language becomes a separate world unto itself, which we mistake for the real world.

(Last and most important point ) even though perspectives do not depict reality itself, they are useful

Interpreting the world by the means of perspective is "the basic condition of all life" however, truth is not an issue here, for "a belief can be a condition of life and nonetheless be false." Because our perspectives make the overwhelming chaos of the world manageable by making it seem simpler than it really is. By imposing our interpretations on the world "we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc, for us"

Nietzsche proposes a new and paradoxical definition of truth:
"Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive"

For example, if a tribe believed a poisonous plant was dangerous because it had demons in it, the belief would be false, but this fiction caused them to avoid eating the plant, it would serve as a life preserving purpose. What we call "truths" are simply those fictions that have had the most value throughout our evolutionary history.

"Over immense periods of time, the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these probed to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny"

These life preserving errors include: that there are things, substances, bodies, that a thing is what appears to be, that our will is free, that what is good for me is also good in itself,
Or in Geometry and science for example: we talk about theoretical abstract entities that do not exist, such as lines, planes, divisible time spans, divisible spaces, the models we use to understand atoms (because we cannot grasp matter being both particle and wave) etc.

too long? oh well I hope you learn something from this post.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz

Just kidding Ill read it later.

Well, I agree with mauz, and like the correspondence theory. I prefer a theory of truth that arises out of a relationship between P and events in the world rather then a pragmatic theory of truth: P is true if it is useful to believe. Well whats more useful? science or art? I'd probably go with science, but asking in general is rough. Useful for what?
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Cali
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
well here's my take on it. i studied biomedical engineering which meshes together basically all fields of science... and now i am studying art as a design major. in science one makes observations of the world, then comes up with a theory or hypothesis, and then tests it through experimentation. the "coming up with a theory or hypothesis" stage requires creativity on the scientist's part. often i see new scientific theories as analogies to completely unrelated things, however the exploration of new possibilities will lend light towards a greater understanding of the truth.

if you study physics, chemistry, biology, psychology (as mentioned in the 1st post), knowledge is based on scientific models, or analogies used to describe the world within a context, each with their own limitations. in physics, there is the newtonian model, quantum model, superstring, "timecube", etc... in chemistry, u have the bohr model, lewis model, etc.. a classic limitation in the field is discrete representation of bonds (single, double, triple bonds), however resonance structures are unclassified.. they are something in between. nowadays in physiology, the cardiovascular system is often represented in terms of electrical circuits (heart=battery, veins=capacitor, etc), which is a good example of a model inspired from an unrelated field. and of course in psychology, there are many different models used to tackle different problems.. cognitive, personality, social, etc.

all of these scientific models paint a picture that help people understand a certain angle of the truth. these are analogies to serve very specific purposes.. and you cannot expect a model to apply to everything. likewise, art is an analogy that relates us to truth. for example, a photorealistic drawing or painting is a physical 2-D representation of the 3-D world.. and when you start to move away from representational art, and go more abstract, deeper emotional understanding relating to your own personal interpretations can be achieved.

so anyways... i think science is also an art... and i think art and science can equally get u to truth. it's a matter of using the right analogy for what you are trying to understand.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
^ I agree.
It reminds me of this tattoo

(my long previous post cancels this spammy but slightly on-topic post )
7795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / I am forever Wand...
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I'm more fan of arts, but science is cool. I'm split both ways.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Heaven
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Depends... I think art would because REAL art is based on emotions and the heart of mind. Dramatic arts is with emotions and movement also, I think. Some science are unbiased. Science has got some people to think that geniuses are scientific. But, whether your a genius at school or learning doesn't always determine how smart you are, sometimes you have to be intellectually and morally smart. So I'm saying art.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
what do you mean morally smart?
1373 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / NYC
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Real art is when we want to portray what we feel or what we would like to make others feel....ther is no reality in the world of art only the mind of a creative person...At least when I paint that's what I feel. I don't see how anyone or anything can portray reality or truth for that matter, No one person or concept can really explain to us the truth.

And as many have said. It also depends on what type of truth you are seeking.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Well, this slid off the main page so may as well post some thoughts.

"science is also an art" Well perhaps partly at the moment due to creative involvement in hypothesizes, but in 20 or so years when computers become more intelligent then humans. Shrug, they can be creative too I suppose.

That "art and science can equally get u to truth" it seems everyone agrees on to some extent. The main concerns are how and what kind of truth. Well my answers as far as what kind... Art as a product of creativity can provide something to look at objectively. But, it seems what truth we can come to about art is largely subjective truth however -- I feel this, you feel that, the truth depends on its being experienced. Science aims for as close as is possible to objective only. So, what kind of truth is more important, or should be valued more. Might be silly to pick, but when we we don't experience them, the objective truths will still be out there to be experienced.

Resource: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html
5418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Toronto
Offline
Posted 2/2/07

Eros wrote:

Well, this slid off the main page so may as well post some thoughts.

"science is also an art" Well perhaps partly at the moment due to creative involvement in hypothesizes, but in 20 or so years when computers become more intelligent then humans. Shrug, they can be creative too I suppose.

That art and science can equally get u to truth it seems everyone agrees on to some extent. The main concerns are how and what kind of truth. Well my answers as far as what kind... Art as a product of creativity can provide something to look at objectively. But, it seems art can only say about what is the case as it pertains to subjective truth however -- I feel this, you feel that, the truth depends on its being experienced. Science aims for as close as is possible to objective only. So, what kind of truth is more important, or should be valued more. Might be silly to pick, but when we we don't experience them, the objective truths will still be out there to be experienced.


I agree...well cuz I'm on the grayscale
367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / desk drawer
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
i'm starting biomed this yr
lol send me some notes wushu!!

and i agree too that science is an art..
in fact i see everything in my life as art.
the way the sun goes up and down
the way i eat, walk, and pick my nose is different to the way my friend eats, walks and picks his nose.
you can gauge a few 'truths' about a person by simply staring at them. i think science is the same thing, just more disciplined.
15140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Minnesota
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
Even though I excel in "the arts" and suck at science, I'm going to have to choose science.
1905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / pwning the world.
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
i don't really know whats going on since these posts are too long *cough* eros *cough* mauz *cough* *cough* :P

But I think science explains the world better but arts explains our ablity to think and create. Even though both are really interesting I like art better.. Its soo funn~ ^^
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/07
I was gone for a few days, I had to somehow make up for my absence =P
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.