The Combo Club

[swink]

And so sayeth the Doctor to end this riveting discussion science vs. art. I say this because I’d like to know who’s courageous enough to offer a counterpoint to his point! And he has a good one too. But that man a new Hofner!

Here he's speculating

Arts often also relies values

 

[swink]

Well, according to my research there is not a lot of difference between arts and science, because at the core of science is not a set of facts but a set of values. The facts of science have changed over time - e.g. the caloric theory of heat vs the kinetic theory of heat - but the values are mostly the same; predictability, falsifiability, accuracy, simplicity and so on. Arts often also relies values - this is most obvious in ethical and political theory - and many of the claims made by the arts side are better known than science. It is more widely accepted that murder is wrong than space-time is relative, as one example. So both parts of the academy can be slippery or firm depending on where your are standing.

I had to think about this for a moment... and these are my reflections.

The only known facts in science are the measured values. The theory extracted as a result from these facts can never been seen as a fact but as a theory and will always remain a theory and has the right to be changed if other (newly discovered ) facts are added in the equation.

The values used in art are subjective and difficult to measure. The theories arising from different interpretations over the centuries are often imposed by the ruling regime and art movements.

At the moment I tend to see science as a means of understanding the workings of the world, and art as a means of expressing our understanding (or incomprehension).

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

I had to think about this for a moment... and these are my reflections.

The only known facts in science are the measured values. The theory extracted as a result from these facts can never been seen as a fact but as a theory and will always remain a theory and has the right to be changed if other (newly discovered ) facts are added in the equation.

The values used in art are subjective and difficult to measure. The theories arising from different interpretations over the centuries are often imposed by the ruling regime and art movements.

At the moment I tend to see science as a means of understanding the workings of the world, and art as a means of expressing our understanding (or incomprehension).

Unfortunately there are some problems with your description of both areas. Often scientific theories are not derived from facts. For example, Einstein came up with his theories of relativity before there was any empirical confirmation of them. The first empirical, or factual, confirmation of his theory occurred with the Eddington experiment, and this only approximated his theory. There were only four points of contact between Einstein's theory and reality by 1960 and yet the theory was widely accepted. So often scientific theories are invented and then projected onto reality. What remains stable in science, as I mentioned, is a set of values.

Arts is not subjective, as there is often a lot of agreement on values. For example, that murder is wrong and that individual liberty is important. Of course, you may point to disagreement about these types of values but such examples of disagreement does not establish subjectivity. First, because it ignores the fact that there is a lot of agreement on values. Second, disagreement also occurs with scientific claims. It is obvious that mere disagreement in science does not substantiate subjectivism.

It is true that humans do project values onto nature. This is called the fact/value distinction. This is a distinction first posted by David Hume. That doesn't mean values are subjective, as humans tend to value the same things (mostly). Consider the fact that only 2% of the population are psychopaths. Psychopaths are individuals that do not think moral values are real. That means that 98% of the population believe moral values are real. That doesn't seem subjective to me.

 

[iagtrplyr]

And for our halftime show, I’ll update you that my ability to record with my Presonus interface and software is improving. Now, as sort of a musical alchemist (my only science-related comment), I’m attempting to add my Orange/Fender rig into the equation so it can be recorded during a videotaping.

Great philosophical match so far with Swink opening up strongly, though Doc Intrepid countered with an Einstein analogy and could be a decisive blow to Team Swink.

Okay, gents, back to the action as we now head into the second half of debate...

 

[GonePlaid]

And for our halftime show, I’ll update you that my ability to record with my Presonus interface and software is improving. Now, as sort of a musical alchemist (my only science-related comment), I’m attempting to add my Orange/Fender rig into the equation so it can be recorded during a videotaping.

Great philosophical match so far with Swink opening up strongly, though Doc Intrepid countered with an Einstein analogy and could be a decisive blow to Team Swink.

Okay, gents, back to the action as we now head into the second half of debate...

 

[Recon1342]

I had to think about this for a moment... and these are my reflections.

The only known facts in science are the measured values. The theory extracted as a result from these facts can never been seen as a fact but as a theory and will always remain a theory and has the right to be changed if other (newly discovered ) facts are added in the equation.

The values used in art are subjective and difficult to measure. The theories arising from different interpretations over the centuries are often imposed by the ruling regime and art movements.

At the moment I tend to see science as a means of understanding the workings of the world, and art as a means of expressing our understanding (or incomprehension).

Unfortunately there are some problems with your description of both areas. Often scientific theories are not derived from facts. For example, Einstein came up with his theories of relativity before there was any empirical confirmation of them. The first empirical, or factual, confirmation of his theory occurred with the Eddington experiment, and this only approximated his theory. There were only four points of contact between Einstein's theory and reality by 1960 and yet the theory was widely accepted. So often scientific theories are invented and then projected onto reality. What remains stable in science, as I mentioned, is a set of values.

Arts is not subjective, as there is often a lot of agreement on values. For example, that murder is wrong and that individual liberty is important. Of course, you may point to disagreement about these types of values but such examples of disagreement does not establish subjectivity. First, because it ignores the fact that there is a lot of agreement on values. Second, disagreement also occurs with scientific claims. It is obvious that mere disagreement in science does not substantiate subjectivism.

It is true that humans do project values onto nature. This is called the fact/value distinction. This is a distinction first posted by David Hume. That doesn't mean values are subjective, as humans tend to value the same things (mostly). Consider the fact that only 2% of the population are psychopaths. Psychopaths are individuals that do not think moral values are real. That means that 98% of the population believe moral values are real. That doesn't seem subjective to me.

For a bass to make sounds, science is required; however, playing the bass is art. Can’t have one without the other.

 

[GonePlaid]

For a bass to make sounds, science is required; however, playing the bass is art. Can’t have one without the other.

Yeah, they "go together like a horse an"......never mind.

 

[GwenOnBass]

And for our halftime show, I’ll update you that my ability to record with my Presonus interface and software is improving. Now, as sort of a musical alchemist (my only science-related comment), I’m attempting to add my Orange/Fender rig into the equation so it can be recorded during a videotaping.

Great philosophical match so far with Swink opening up strongly, though Doc Intrepid countered with an Einstein analogy and could be a decisive blow to Team Swink.

Okay, gents, back to the action as we now head into the second half of debate...

 

[iagtrplyr]

View attachment 3886797

Our sideline reporter, Gone Plaid, gives his first half assessment of today’s action.

The only thing we up here in the booth aren’t sure about is whether he’s questioning Iagtrplyr’s desire to not only be able to hear his playing and the song at the same time thru his headphones while simultaneously running the bass signal through his rig OR the argument involving science and art.

We may never know...

 

[swink]

Often scientific theories are not derived from facts. For example, Einstein came up with his theories of relativity before there was any empirical confirmation of them. The first empirical, or factual, confirmation of his theory occurred with the Eddington experiment, and this only approximated his theory. There were only four points of contact between Einstein's theory and reality by 1960 and yet the theory was widely accepted. So often scientific theories are invented and then projected onto reality. What remains stable in science, as I mentioned, is a set of values.

I can't see where you disagree with me.

Facts => theory=> test theory => reevaluate....

Unless Einsteins theory is derived from unicorns and pink clouds, we have to assume he came up with his theory based on facts. whether he was right or wrong is not relevant in this discussion.

Arts is not subjective, as there is often a lot of agreement on values. For example, that murder is wrong and that individual liberty is important. Of course, you may point to disagreement about these types of values but such examples of disagreement does not establish subjectivity. First, because it ignores the fact that there is a lot of agreement on values. Second, disagreement also occurs with scientific claims. It is obvious that mere disagreement in science does not substantiate subjectivism.

So art is an axiomatic given driven by group pressure and imposed values that can be objectively interpreted?

Why do I feel like you mix up the values.

 

[GwenOnBass]

Here's a little something that went over the transom while you all were wondering about a Kant and Hegel celebrity death match — dropped an email to the my bass pusher with a request for a used short scale (should any come in on trade &c) ....

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

View attachment 3886816​

Yes, I am an Analytic philosopher. So that cartoon is rather fitting. My research, which has resulted in various publications and conferences, specializes in where ethics and epistemology overlap. I've been obsessed with this topic for most of my professional career.

 

[GonePlaid]

Our sideline reporter, Gone Plaid, gives his first half assessment of today’s action.

The only thing we up here in the booth aren’t sure about is whether he’s questioning Iagtrplyr’s desire to not only be able to hear his playing and the song at the same time thru his headphones while simultaneously running the bass signal through his rig OR the argument involving science and art.

We may never know...

Yes......er,....no,....uhh,....maybe. Yeah, definitely maybe.

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

I can't see where you disagree with me.

Facts => theory=> test theory => reevaluate....

Unless Einsteins theory is derived from unicorns and pink clouds, we have to assume he came up with his theory based on facts. whether he was right or wrong is not relevant in this discussion.



So art is an axiomatic given driven by group pressure and imposed values that can be objectively interpreted?

Why do I feel like you mix up the values.

Unfortunately I don't think you know about the history of science given your description of how Einstein came up with his theory. Many, if not most, of scientific theories are creatively invented by scientists and then tested against the facts. This was Einstein's view of science as well as Karl Popper's view, and it is Popper's view of science (i.e. falsification) that dominates how scientists view the scientific method. Check out Einstein's views on science to see that I am correct.

I don't think you and I have the same level of expertise on this issue so I'm going to refrain from continuing this debate now.

 

[swink]

I don't think you and I have the same level of expertise on this issue so I'm going to refrain from continuing this debate now.

I'm sure we don't have the same level of experience, hereby I' dd like to thank you for your time out of your ivory tower and to lower yourself at my unworthy level. I 'm sorry if I derived you from your valuable time.

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

I'm sure we don't have the same level of experience, hereby I' dd like to thank you for your time out of your ivory tower and to lower yourself at my unworthy level. I 'm sorry if I derived you from your valuable time.

I come more from an ivory trailer park, but thanks.

 

[GonePlaid]

I come more from an ivory trailer park, but thanks.

I believe that's called "refrigerator white".

 

[swink]

Check out Einstein's views on science to see that I am correct.

Unfortunately I don't think you know about the history of science given your description of how Einstein came up with his theory.

In my knowledge of Einstein I must confine myself to the biography of Walter Isaacson

Quote W.Isaacson... What also counted was his philosophical formation: under the influence of Hume and Mach he had become sceptical about things that could not be observed. This scepticism was reinforced by his tendency to question authority.....

 

[GwenOnBass]

F flat = MC squared

 

[GwenOnBass]

I believe that's called "refrigerator white".

Recognizable by the old Big Wheel, broken Trans Camero, and an avocado refrigerator without its door in the yard, behind the fence to keep the riff raff out