|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2020 8:45:02 GMT
Are the items in the following list an art or a science? You may decide they are a mix, if so, how much of each are they.
- Gardening
- Karate
- Astronomy
- Economics
- Cinema
- Democracy
- Poker
- Art
- Fascism
- Science
- Humor
- Chess
- Astrology
- Cooking
- Yoga
- Music
Some items in the list might have been included for humorous effect. Is there a shortage of science today? Is there a shortage of art today? What great strides in science do you expect? Where?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 3, 2020 8:53:24 GMT
Gardening- Art
Karate- Neither
Astronomy- Science
Economics- science
Cinema- Art
Democracy- Neither
Poker- Neither
Art- art
Fascism- Neither
Science- science
Humor- art
Chess- Neither
Astrology- Neither
Cooking- Neither
Yoga- Neither
Music- Art
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2020 8:58:28 GMT
Gardening- Art Karate- Neither Astronomy- Science Economics- science Cinema- Art Democracy- Neither Poker- Neither Art- art Fascism- Neither Science- science Humor- art Chess- Neither Astrology- Neither Cooking- Neither Yoga- Neither Music- Art Is life an art, science or neither? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2020 9:20:57 GMT
Okay, some of you might find this interesting. Is monochrome (black and white) imaging more scientific than full color imaging? As with most things it depends where you mean. Because photosensitive materials do not distinguish colors very well at all it is necessary to take several copies of an image through various color filters. That decreases the amount of light gathering capability of the equipment since you cannot get a brighter image just by adding copies together. Where light gathering capability must be maximized monochrome imaging does the job. Where distinguishing colors matters more, that is different. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 3, 2020 10:47:58 GMT
- Gardening - gay
- Karate - not as cool as kung fu
- Astronomy - boring unless aliens appear in the sky
- Economics - boring
- Cinema - 2001: A Space Odyssey = art. Howling 6: The Freaks = not art
- Democracy - pussies
- Poker - winnable only via stabbing opponents
- Art - gay
- Fascism - strength! might! order!
- Science - boring
- Humor - its funny when its mine.
- Chess - boring
- Astrology - boring. and very gay
- Cooking - that's what the microwave was invented for. And takeaway joints.
- Yoga - a search word I've typed in more than once on certain websites.
- Music - stopped being art round about the mid-90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 3, 2020 12:02:49 GMT
Are the items in the following list an art or a science? You may decide they are a mix, if so, how much of each are they.
Some items in the list might have been included for humorous effect. Is there a shortage of science today? Is there a shortage of art today? What great strides in science do you expect? Where?
In India you get MA in economics. In the UK you get MSc in economics. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 3, 2020 12:16:19 GMT
Gardening- Art Karate- Neither Astronomy- Science Economics- science Cinema- Art Democracy- Neither Poker- Neither Art- art Fascism- Neither Science- science Humor- art Chess- Neither Astrology- Neither Cooking- Neither Yoga- Neither Music- Art Is life an art, science or neither? Both |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2020 12:22:16 GMT
- Gardening - gay
- Karate - not as cool as kung fu
- Astronomy - boring unless aliens appear in the sky
- Economics - boring
- Cinema - 2001: A Space Odyssey = art. Howling 6: The Freaks = not art
- Democracy - pussies
- Poker - winnable only via stabbing opponents
- Art - gay
- Fascism - strength! might! order!
- Science - boring
- Humor - its funny when its mine.
- Chess - boring
- Astrology - boring. and very gay
- Cooking - that's what the microwave was invented for. And takeaway joints.
- Yoga - a search word I've typed in more than once on certain websites.
- Music - stopped being art round about the mid-90s.
I meant Kung Fu |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 3, 2020 12:35:40 GMT
Gardening - both
Karate - art
Astronomy - science
Economics - both
Cinema - art
Democracy - neither
Poker - both
Art - art
Fascism - neither
Science - science
Humor - art
Chess - science (it can of course be played in an artistic way too, but someone who can play it scientifically will always win)
Astrology - neither
Cooking - both
Yoga - both
Music - both
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 3, 2020 12:39:20 GMT
Are the items in the following list an art or a science? You may decide they are a mix, if so, how much of each are they.
Some items in the list might have been included for humorous effect. Is there a shortage of science today? Is there a shortage of art today? What great strides in science do you expect? Where?
In India you get MA in economics. In the UK you get MSc in economics. There are elements of science in economics but there are too many variables for it to be approached wholly scientifically and a lot of the models used are driven by politics rather than utility. A lot of macro-economics seems to be explaining why previous predictions failed. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 3, 2020 13:07:39 GMT
Economics is a bit of a tricky one, you could call it a "soft science" of sorts, by that I mean one that is very difficult to test and get empirical data for. Also science generally is mostly concerned with descriptive claims (describing how something works), economics frequenly incorporate prescriptive claims (what is the best actions to take) which is why economics has so many philosophyies/schools of thougt (Keynsian economics, Marxism, Ayn Rand philosophy, classical economics, neoliberalism, protectionism, free market trading, etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 4, 2020 3:59:10 GMT
Interesting thread:
Gardening - Both, probably more science than art now.
Karate - Both, but probably more art than science.
Astronomy - Science
Economics - Science
Cinema - Art, though an art that required science to exist
Democracy - Neither?
Poker - Both, but more science than art. Really, I'd say you have to have a firm understanding (even if intuitive) of the science before the "art" even matters.
Art - Science (kidding, of course)
Fascism - Neither
Science - Science, though there's an artistry to how scientists must imagine hypotheses, as Einstein noted.
Humor - Art
Chess - Both. For humans it's more of an art, but world-beating computers have shown how it can be a science.
Astrology - Bullshit
Cooking - Both, but once you get past the basics it's mostly art.
Yoga - Both? Neither?
Music - Art
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 4, 2020 18:58:43 GMT
There's an awful lot of science to be found in art, music and cinema. Leonardo da Vinci studied a lot of anatomy, mathematics of perspective, and optics to practice his painting. Music also has a great mathematical underpinning, found in the tempered scale used by J. S. Bach, and in the design of musical instruments. And of course, the formal name of the organization that gives out the Oscars includes the word "sciences".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 5, 2020 4:10:53 GMT
There's an awful lot of science to be found in art, music and cinema. Leonardo da Vinci studied a lot of anatomy, mathematics of perspective, and optics to practice his painting. Music also has a great mathematical underpinning, found in the tempered scale used by J. S. Bach, and in the design of musical instruments. And of course, the formal name of the organization that gives out the Oscars includes the word "sciences". I think there's "science" in pretty much everything to the extent that it can be studied empirically, and most everything can. The way I approached this is less about can something be studied/approached scientifically, and more about how much the doing of those things requires science. The creation of art, music, cinema, etc. more requires practice and honing one's instinct and intuitions as to what looks good, sounds good, etc. It's also still something of a mystery as to why some art (broad sense) moves us profoundly and some art does not. Is it possible to scientifically say why Veritigo is considered a masterpiece and The Room is considered so-bad-it's-good? I'm hoping neuroaesethetics will help to bring some scientific understanding to the issue, but it's a pretty young field. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2020 4:23:30 GMT
There's an awful lot of science to be found in art, music and cinema. Leonardo da Vinci studied a lot of anatomy, mathematics of perspective, and optics to practice his painting. Music also has a great mathematical underpinning, found in the tempered scale used by J. S. Bach, and in the design of musical instruments. And of course, the formal name of the organization that gives out the Oscars includes the word "sciences". I think there's "science" in pretty much everything to the extent that it can be studied empirically, and most everything can. The way I approached this is less about can something be studied/approached scientifically, and more about how much the doing of those things requires science. The creation of art, music, cinema, etc. more requires practice and honing one's instinct and intuitions as to what looks good, sounds good, etc. It's also still something of a mystery as to why some art (broad sense) moves us profoundly and some art does not. Is it possible to scientifically say why Veritigo is considered a masterpiece and The Room is considered so-bad-it's-good? I'm hoping neuroaesethetics will help to bring some scientific understanding to the issue, but it's a pretty young field. You have said it better than I could, however it is something that I have often, and for a long time wondered, about how some 'things' ...strike a cord with people, in an artistic sense,( and I mean that broadly even to the point of memes and things that go viral on the internet, for the modern context) and those that don't. I studied 'Fine Arts' ie the philosophy, manifestation, history and aesthetics of 'art' and it is something that is of almost an eternal mystery as to what lines colours, depiction of ideas etc find a resonance in different people and how much of it is intrinsic and/or sociological. It would be fascinating to tease out things like society, anthropology and many other branches and even to see if there were genetic and evolutionary issues at play here. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 5, 2020 4:34:13 GMT
I think there's "science" in pretty much everything to the extent that it can be studied empirically, and most everything can. The way I approached this is less about can something be studied/approached scientifically, and more about how much the doing of those things requires science. The creation of art, music, cinema, etc. more requires practice and honing one's instinct and intuitions as to what looks good, sounds good, etc. It's also still something of a mystery as to why some art (broad sense) moves us profoundly and some art does not. Is it possible to scientifically say why Veritigo is considered a masterpiece and The Room is considered so-bad-it's-good? I'm hoping neuroaesethetics will help to bring some scientific understanding to the issue, but it's a pretty young field. You have said it better than I could, however it is something that I have often, and for a long time wondered, about how some 'things' ...strike a cord with people, in an artistic sense,( and I mean that broadly even to the point of memes and things that go viral on the internet, for the modern context) and those that don't. I studied 'Fine Arts' ie the philosophy, manifestation, history and aesthetics of 'art' and it is something that is of almost an eternal mystery as to what lines colours, ideas etc find a resonance in different people and how much of it is intrinsic and/or sociological. It would be fascinating to tease out things like society, anthropology and many other branches and even to see if there were genetic and evolutionary issues at play here. It's probably the field I've spent the most time studying and thinking about myself since the arts are my deepest passion. Why certain art works is certainly a mix of intrinsic properties that resonate due to evolutionary psychology, and the expectations/surprise dichotomy that's largely mediated by society and culture. Considering the former, the major reason music appeals to us is because our brains delight and finding patterns, and music is all about organizing sound to create such patterns; and even the methods of organizations we've devised have a lot to do with a kind of aural symmetry in how certain tones juxtaposed with each other sound to us (which is where our concepts of harmony/dissonance come from). However, in regards to the latter, a major thing that shapes our reaction to this "aural patterning" is the cultural expectations of what types of sounds and patterns to expect, and different people have enormously variance tolerance levels of and levels of attraction to expectation and surprise. All I mean by that is that some people are drawn only to what's familiar/comfortable, others are drawn to what's different/familiar, and there's a huge middle-ground in between. As an example, I think a big reason The Beatles, eg, were so successful is because they began as a band that played a very "familiar and comfortable" form of rock that basically mixed all the popular styles of the time, and they did it so well they amassed a huge fanbase from the beginning. So by the time they got to Rubber Soul and (especially) Revolver and started experimenting, people were willing to be "surprised" by all the new avenues they explored. I think one can do a similar analysis when it comes to literature, film, and the other visual arts, though the parameters change slightly. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2020 4:58:40 GMT
You have said it better than I could, however it is something that I have often, and for a long time wondered, about how some 'things' ...strike a cord with people, in an artistic sense,( and I mean that broadly even to the point of memes and things that go viral on the internet, for the modern context) and those that don't. I studied 'Fine Arts' ie the philosophy, manifestation, history and aesthetics of 'art' and it is something that is of almost an eternal mystery as to what lines colours, ideas etc find a resonance in different people and how much of it is intrinsic and/or sociological. It would be fascinating to tease out things like society, anthropology and many other branches and even to see if there were genetic and evolutionary issues at play here. It's probably the field I've spent the most time studying and thinking about myself since the arts are my deepest passion. Why certain art works is certainly a mix of intrinsic properties that resonate due to evolutionary psychology, and the expectations/surprise dichotomy that's largely mediated by society and culture. Considering the former, the major reason music appeals to us is because our brains delight and finding patterns, and music is all about organizing sound to create such patterns; and even the methods of organizations we've devised have a lot to do with a kind of aural symmetry in how certain tones juxtaposed with each other sound to us (which is where our concepts of harmony/dissonance come from). However, in regards to the latter, a major thing that shapes our reaction to this "aural patterning" is the cultural expectations of what types of sounds and patterns to expect, and different people have enormously variance tolerance levels of and levels of attraction to expectation and surprise. All I mean by that is that some people are drawn only to what's familiar/comfortable, others are drawn to what's different/familiar, and there's a huge middle-ground in between. As an example, I think a big reason The Beatles, eg, were so successful is because they began as a band that played a very "familiar and comfortable" form of rock that basically mixed all the popular styles of the time, and they did it so well they amassed a huge fanbase from the beginning. So by the time they got to Rubber Soul and (especially) Revolver and started experimenting, people were willing to be "surprised" by all the new avenues they explored. I think one can do a similar analysis when it comes to literature, film, and the other visual arts, though the parameters change slightly. Whilst I agree with much of this...be careful not to speak from a purely Western viewpoint |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 5, 2020 6:00:25 GMT
It's probably the field I've spent the most time studying and thinking about myself since the arts are my deepest passion. Why certain art works is certainly a mix of intrinsic properties that resonate due to evolutionary psychology, and the expectations/surprise dichotomy that's largely mediated by society and culture. Considering the former, the major reason music appeals to us is because our brains delight and finding patterns, and music is all about organizing sound to create such patterns; and even the methods of organizations we've devised have a lot to do with a kind of aural symmetry in how certain tones juxtaposed with each other sound to us (which is where our concepts of harmony/dissonance come from). However, in regards to the latter, a major thing that shapes our reaction to this "aural patterning" is the cultural expectations of what types of sounds and patterns to expect, and different people have enormously variance tolerance levels of and levels of attraction to expectation and surprise. All I mean by that is that some people are drawn only to what's familiar/comfortable, others are drawn to what's different/familiar, and there's a huge middle-ground in between. As an example, I think a big reason The Beatles, eg, were so successful is because they began as a band that played a very "familiar and comfortable" form of rock that basically mixed all the popular styles of the time, and they did it so well they amassed a huge fanbase from the beginning. So by the time they got to Rubber Soul and (especially) Revolver and started experimenting, people were willing to be "surprised" by all the new avenues they explored. I think one can do a similar analysis when it comes to literature, film, and the other visual arts, though the parameters change slightly. Whilst I agree with much of this...be careful not to speak from a purely Western viewpoint I think the same basics apply no matter the culture but, as I said, the sounds/patterns and, thus, expectation/surprise change depending on culture. Of course I'd only use Western examples since that's what I'm familiar with, but even that Chinese classical music isn't without, eg, tonality. It's also rather remarkable how similar systems developed independently in cultures that were so isolated from each other. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 5, 2020 6:40:37 GMT
Interesting dichotomy. I like when fools are forced to work within a structure. For example, astrology is a science even if it's results are incorrect and superstitious. It still uses scientific method based on planetary movement.
Horticulture is the science. Gardening is the art.
Fascism is a science, as are all political systems. Remember, saying it's science doesn't mean it's results are always correct. Even physicists make mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 5, 2020 6:46:19 GMT
Interesting dichotomy. I like when fools are forced to work within a structure. For example, astrology is a science even if it's results are incorrect and superstitious. It still uses scientific method based on planetary movement. I think you're confusing pseudoscience with science. Pseudoscience can create systems and use technical-sounding terminology without ever subjecting itself to the kind of rigorous empirical testing that's necessary for something to qualify as genuine science, and that's precisely how astrology works. The fact that it utilizes some scientific facts, like planetary movement, in no way lends any scientific credence to the hypothesis that those movements affect people's personalities or futures. |
|
