Richard Dawkins - "Science is a form of art."

[Cytosine]

I was just watching this interview with biologist Richard Dawkins. While I myself am what most would call an atheist, I've always respected Dawkins as a biologist more than a philosopher - except when he talks about the philosophy of science.

My question is: what do you think? In many universities, science and art are seen as mutually exclusive pursuits with the artistes being inspired by some divine creative force and with scientists lacking any inspiration at all. Art students always tell me that science is "too much perspiration". Even, as Dawkins mentions, other scientists espouse this view. Is there really a difference in how one interprets scientific information to formulate ideas about reality, and how one interprets experiences and arguments to formulate philosophical ideas?

Was Feynman's theory of electron orbitals any less inspired by the sight of a student throwing a wobbly plate than Holst when he composed "Planets"? Was Einstein inspired, or was it just constant work? Is what we consider inspiration an antiquated idea that is based on rational cognitive processes that we simply run subconsciously?

Philosophical and scientific arguments welcome.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

I think science isn't so much about being inspired as having an understanding of it. Some individuals, like Einstein and Tesla, obviously had a very good understanding of how things work as well as the determination to put in hard work.

Dawkins's reasons for being an atheist are just, but he should not try being a philosopher. "Philosophy of science" is just as idiotic as claiming that there's a philosophy to taking a shit. There can be a philosophy as to why we do something a certain way, but not how that certain something actually works.

Besides, if science were a form of art, then wouldn't that be evidence of a creator?

[Stainless]

The general definition of art kinda excludes science, really. Not to say, science doesn't have any forms of inspiration - theres plenty. Such as when Newton saw the apple fall whilst looking at the moon. However, theres nothing artistic about it; You're not creating, but discovering.

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

I've never really liked Richard Dawkins. He just seems so obsessed with religion. I saw a documentary he presented, which was meant to be about evolution, and he just made it all about religion. There was even footage of him debunking the religious beliefs of school children. Anyway, that's beside the point (and can get me infracted). Art is designed to be appealing to sense (to see, hear, taste, touch, smell (?)) and that's its purpose. Science is a process of learning about the nature of our universe, so I don't really see the comparison.

[Full Frontal]

I can see the parallels. Both involve expression and using that expression to hopefully create dialogue and further study.

We "know" certain things. We know that when we look at a clear lake on a cloudy day we will see ourselves in it. But the artist will express that visually with paints and brushstrokes and light. The scientist will express that by explaining principles of light and reflection. He can tell you the angle of incidence and where you will be on a virtual plane and such and such.

Take any subject matter you can think of and both can be expressed through art and science.

[Rust]

I wouldn't say that Science is art, but that Science can be art.

One of the main differences is that with art in general, as long as you express yourself in a medium, you can call it art. You can throw around paint on a canvas and call that art; it might not be "good - in the sense of the amount people that like it - but it's still be art. You can't really do that with Science. You can't throw around mathematical equations haphazardly and call it Science. There are certain guidelines - a certain methodology - that attempts to delineate between what's Science and what's not. Getting things to fit with that methodology not only takes some level of perspiration but at the end of the day requires only the bare minimum: a certainly level of accuracy, not necessarily beauty or inspiration.

That said, Science can definitely be beautiful and inspired. Math too. Answering a complex question with a truly simple yet accurate theory is both beautiful and inspired in my view.


"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

[Mutant Funk Drink]

But isn't art/aesthetics a restricted to the human imagination? Science can be art only because we might think it is.

[sevenTwo]

I think science and art mix well. Science is like a toolkit and art is the person's imagination extended by that toolkit.

For music, guys like Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie extended the diatonic scale and played all the right notes but not in the traditional sense at the time. They had music down to a science and extended their knowledge to create some new and innovative.

For mathematics, we have guys like Newton, Euler, Galois...etc. These guys took what they knew from previous knowledge, just as Charlie and Dizzy did with music, and formed different theorems and lemmas. Even guys like Poincaré who made a conjecture, although were unable to prove it soundly, still had to think out of the box and be creative about it.

Creativity plays a huge role in any field and the best of the best mix creativity with intellect.

[Dunamis]

Do we not see science reverting back to artistry such as using the metaphorical vibrating strings in superstring theory to conceptualize the flux of existence?

[The Jitterskull]

Science and the paranormal go together when you take the blinders off.

[I Ate Your Bees]

Science and art are fundamentally different interpretations of reality.

Art is the subjective interpretation of reality according to an individual's value judgements.

Science is the attempt to objectively interpret reality independent of value judgements.