Just by
observing the many states of reality that we experience daily we can see that
looking through a so-called "empirical" and "logical" lens
at the "objective" realm of what is "provable" captures
only part of the picture.
Reality
encompasses that which is beyond science as we know it, or at least beyond that
which the current scientific mindset can explain.
Lehrer
refers to physics as a scientific study that?s closely aligned with art in that
it deals with the realm of invisible, fundamental forces that defy literal
explanation:
CAN ART AN SCIENCE BECOME ONE AND THE SAME GREG WENDT http://realitysandwich.com/1322/could_science_art_become_one_same/
***
A concise definition of art is "human creativity." These two words are significant. Man, in art, is bringing into being something that had never existed outside his own being. He is creating. This being so, no matter how stunningly artistically beautiful a computer-generated piece of music or painting may be, it cannot be called art.
Science, on the other hand, is systematic knowledge derived from observation and experiences. The scientist begins a project from a definite knowledge point and successfully terminates it at another specific point; there is then a Q.E.D. The starting point is in the physical and intellectual realms. The scientist, for instance, wonders how a bird can fly, and he sets himself the task of making a man fly. According to myth, Icarus experimented with flying in ancient Greece. He literally "grew wings," but his materials failed him. The great Leonardo da Vinci designed an ornithopter around 1500 A.D., but he did not reach the Q.E.D. The Wright brothers were able to build the precursor of the modern airplane between 1900 and 1902. This ictabilityis the nature of science.
When does Art become Science and Science Become Art?http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/leonardo/v042/42.1.grillo.html
What are we to make of it when human impress diggeionsr from scientific measurements,
1. We can dismiss the impression as a figment of their imagination
2.WE can try to eliminate variables that might be the true cause of their impressui.
3. We can assume that the current set of metrics are inadequate to measure the perceived phenomenon.
Depending on your reference point you may have a predisposed idea of what option should be utilized. In the field of audio there are two camps creator and consumers. One creates stimulus and other generates a response. It appears audiophiles can be stimulated by other things than the music being played. Because stereo reproduction is part illusion that is not necessarily undesirable It is unlikely that a large number of unrelated people will have the same or similar imagined response to a nonexistent stimulus. I say that because humans rarely have the same response to a real stimulus.
What do react when humans have a response that is inconsistent with our current system of metrics. We can't ignore the response IMO/. Nor is it fair to ask scientist to prove the universal negative.
What's the solution?
observing the many states of reality that we experience daily we can see that
looking through a so-called "empirical" and "logical" lens
at the "objective" realm of what is "provable" captures
only part of the picture.
Reality
encompasses that which is beyond science as we know it, or at least beyond that
which the current scientific mindset can explain.
Lehrer
refers to physics as a scientific study that?s closely aligned with art in that
it deals with the realm of invisible, fundamental forces that defy literal
explanation:
CAN ART AN SCIENCE BECOME ONE AND THE SAME GREG WENDT http://realitysandwich.com/1322/could_science_art_become_one_same/
***
A concise definition of art is "human creativity." These two words are significant. Man, in art, is bringing into being something that had never existed outside his own being. He is creating. This being so, no matter how stunningly artistically beautiful a computer-generated piece of music or painting may be, it cannot be called art.
Science, on the other hand, is systematic knowledge derived from observation and experiences. The scientist begins a project from a definite knowledge point and successfully terminates it at another specific point; there is then a Q.E.D. The starting point is in the physical and intellectual realms. The scientist, for instance, wonders how a bird can fly, and he sets himself the task of making a man fly. According to myth, Icarus experimented with flying in ancient Greece. He literally "grew wings," but his materials failed him. The great Leonardo da Vinci designed an ornithopter around 1500 A.D., but he did not reach the Q.E.D. The Wright brothers were able to build the precursor of the modern airplane between 1900 and 1902. This ictabilityis the nature of science.
When does Art become Science and Science Become Art?http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/leonardo/v042/42.1.grillo.html
What are we to make of it when human impress diggeionsr from scientific measurements,
1. We can dismiss the impression as a figment of their imagination
2.WE can try to eliminate variables that might be the true cause of their impressui.
3. We can assume that the current set of metrics are inadequate to measure the perceived phenomenon.
Depending on your reference point you may have a predisposed idea of what option should be utilized. In the field of audio there are two camps creator and consumers. One creates stimulus and other generates a response. It appears audiophiles can be stimulated by other things than the music being played. Because stereo reproduction is part illusion that is not necessarily undesirable It is unlikely that a large number of unrelated people will have the same or similar imagined response to a nonexistent stimulus. I say that because humans rarely have the same response to a real stimulus.
What do react when humans have a response that is inconsistent with our current system of metrics. We can't ignore the response IMO/. Nor is it fair to ask scientist to prove the universal negative.
What's the solution?
.
