So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr
When you talk about the difference between the two disciplines, you talk about art being resistant to accurate measurement. So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr
I guess it is a matter of Value; the arts are concerned with subjective value that nevertheless approaches pure abstracted ideas of beauty and such (feelings/impressions) whereas the sciences are concerned with objective value that can be formulated into an abstract 'meaning' (equation). — I like sushi
I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD
When you're done with an epic performance of a play, you aren't still performing the play when you pick up your Tony award eight months later, for instance. — AmadeusD
Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values. — AmadeusD
There are fields that are an tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. A good number of architectural rules have been experimentally tested for safety. Still, subjective aesthetics have always been a major consideration in the construction of new buildings. The same can be said about the design of cars or any consumer product. — Tarskian
...science is an epistemic domain governed by a justification method. It really does not matter what exactly it is about as long as the justification method of testability can successfully be applied. — Tarskian
The same is true for mathematics. It is the epistemic domain governed by the justification method of axiomatic provability. — Tarskian
This means that a purely formalist view is perfectly sustainable in mathematics and science: — Tarskian
According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr
That is an oversimplification I feel. Science does require creativity as much as art. — I like sushi
There are not just TWO distinct disciplines. There is a good deal of overlap between various fields of interest within and between Science and Humanities subjects. — I like sushi
If you wish me to focus merely on 'accuracy of measuring' then I guess I can try, but that is not what science is. Nor would I say the humanities is just 'touchy feely' as each leaves an impression on the other (science affects humanities and humanities affects science). — I like sushi
...both 'measure' in different ways. I guess it is a matter of Value; the arts are concerned with subjective value that nevertheless approaches pure abstracted ideas of beauty and such (feelings/impressions) whereas the sciences are concerned with objective value that can be formulated into an abstract 'meaning' (equation). — I like sushi
There are fields that are a tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. — Tarskian
Yet the modern functionalists systematically disregarded the beautiful (or reinterpreted it as a function) as they prioritized practical qualities of planning, engineering, economy, service etc. — jkop
There's no causal relation between the aesthetics and the sustainability and the practical reason for solar panels. — jkop
From your writing above I'm thinking you're not totally averse to my claim science and art differ mainly in terms of two different modalities of discovery: science leans towards objective discovery; art leans towards subjective discovery, and QM establishes where the twain shall meet! — ucarr
From your writing above I'm thinking you're not totally averse to my claim science and art differ mainly in terms of two different modalities of discovery: science leans towards objective discovery; art leans towards subjective discovery, and QM establishes where the twain shall meet! — ucarr
Well, that is such an obvious difference that I am baffled why you would wish to point it out? If your point is merely that Art is subjective and Science is objective (broadly speaking) ... so what? — I like sushi
What = existence; How = journey — ucarr
Physics is not concerned with how at the fundamental level. We know how light propagates. A temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa. That is how we explain the propagation of light. Yet we don't know at the fundamental level how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa.The sciences are concerned with how. How does light propagate, how are chemical bonds formed, how do worms reproduce. — Lionino
Does such a causal relation exist? — ucarr
at the fundamental level — MoK
We know how light propagates — MoK
A temporal change — MoK
A temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa — MoK
Yet we don't know at the fundamental level how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa. — MoK
Do you know how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field? — MoK
It means something. It means given the laws of nature you can predict the behavior of entities. The laws of nature cannot however be explained. That is what I mean by at the fundamental level.1 – This means nothing. — Lionino
Ok, so you are correcting yourself.2 – I said physics is concerned with 'how', not whether we know how this or that particular fact. — Lionino
I mean an explanation in terms of the laws of nature. By this, I mean given the laws of nature you can explain things but you cannot explain the laws of nature.3 – You then proceed to give a physical — though incorrect — explanation of how light propagates, self-refuting your claim that physics isn't concerned with how. — Lionino
It is used. Change can be temporal or spatial. By temporal I mean the strength of the electromagnetic field for example changes at a point in space by time.4 – This phrase "temporal change" isn't used in physics. — Lionino
You can produce electric field if magnetic field changes by time. You can also produce magnetic field in absence of electrical current if electric field changes by time. That is how light propagate in space.5 – That is electromagnetic induction as given by B-S's Law and L's Law. Nothing to do with propagation of the electromagnetic wave. — Lionino
By fundamental I mean we don't know how the laws of nature work.6 – Cut the nonsensical "fundamental" out of the phrase and it is evidently wrong. Even with the "fundamental" there, one could argue it is wrong too, resorting to relativistic explanations. — Lionino
So you know!?lol — Lionino
Ok, so you are correcting yourself. — MoK
It is used. — MoK
By temporal I mean the strength of the electromagnetic field for example changes at a point in space by time. — MoK
That is how light propagate in space. — MoK
In the formalist view, mathematics is just about string manipulation.When you say logic and math aren't about anything at all, do you extend this application all the way to include the internal consistency of logic and math? Hasn't Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem rocked the houses of logic and math because it charges them with essential incompleteness? Doesn't this charge undermine their internal consistency? — ucarr
There are true strings that can be expressed in the language of an arithmetic-capable theory that cannot be generated (from its axioms) by means of legitimate string manipulations in the theory.Doesn't the claim the first-order formalisms of logic and science will always generate statements internally unprovable open a wide fissure down the middle of formalism? Haven't you cited this as the crisis in math? — ucarr
Even though a mathematical theory -- if it is capable of arithmetical string manipulations -- cannot prove the consistency of its own string manipulations, it does not mean that these string manipulations are necessarily inconsistent. — Tarskian
There are true strings that can be expressed in the language of an arithmetic-capable theory that cannot be generated (from its axioms) by means of legitimate string manipulations in the theory.
This incompleteness does not contradict the formalist view that mathematics is just about string manipulation. — Tarskian
...formalism is just one possible view on mathematics. Platonism, for example, is also a perfectly sustainable view. — Tarskian
Just because the universe is inherently logical and computational, that doesn't mean it's not also mysterious, or should I say, miraculous? — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.