is creativity an enemy of mainstream science and hence so is art?

[farolero]

i tried to post some creative art i did here and im not sure if i didnt post it or it got deleted though i cant imagine why

 

so heres a small scifi comic i did some time ago on a reflection if mankind can achieve some day immortality through clonation and ego loading the sixth day movie way:

 

what do you think of it i dont know if i should continue making comics:

 

http://s40.photobucket.com/user/raaaid/media/comic2/1_zps1rp0ynb2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

 

 

[jimmydasaint]

I am sorry but I am an oldie who didn't have a bloody clue what the art was about. My children used to watch Japanese cartoons when they were young and I did not have a bloody clue what they were about either.

 

Creativity, in my opinion, is essential to mainstream Science (whatever that is). Gene editing, which is set to revolutionise medicine, is highly creative and even artistic, as an expression of human creativity (which is my definition of art).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pp17E4E-O8

[Strange]

what do you think of it i dont know if i should continue making comics:

 

 

If you enjoy it, why not. If you like them, then maybe someone else will. But maybe that doesn't matter.

 

As for creativity, it is of course essential to science. Possibly more so than art.

[CharonY]

I am sorry but I am an oldie who didn't have a bloody clue what the art was about. My children used to watch Japanese cartoons when they were young and I did not have a bloody clue what they were about either.

 

Creativity, in my opinion, is essential to mainstream Science (whatever that is). Gene editing, which is set to revolutionise medicine, is highly creative and even artistic, as an expression of human creativity (which is my definition of art).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pp17E4E-O8

 

Specifically in medicine the creative component is low as it is very outcome based and as standardized as possible. However, for most other areas and especially in fundamental research creativity, as well as curiosity are core components. You won't figure out new things if you are not wondering about something odd. And then you are in an area where there is little precedence so you have to develop new means to figure those things out. Doing these kind of things has a large creative component, though it does entail technical skills as well.

However, this is also true for basically any art form.

[Itoero]

(mainstream)Science imo evolves via imagination.

Creativity is about using that imagination.

Your imagination decides how far your knowledge brings you.

 

A quote from Einstein:

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

[giordano bruno]

Ive been checking the forums, seems any creativity is crackpotery and you must submit to what the authorities say

Any creative thinking here seems to be in the trash can or right next to it in speculations

If we take this forum as indicative of mainstream science i totally agree with the original poster

Seems people tend to think the truth is democratical or what is even worse dictated by the guys who have the thickes glasses

[Strange]

Ive been checking the forums, seems any creativity is crackpotery and you must submit to what the authorities say

 

 

I see no evidence of that. The problem only arises when people think their creative ideas are a substitute for evidence.

 

 

 

Seems people tend to think the truth is democratical or what is even worse dictated by the guys who have the thickes glasses

 

"Truth" (in the sense of scientific theories) is absolutely not democratic. It is based on which theory is the best fit for the evidence.

 

The "crackpots" you refer to tend to think that it should be democratic: that their opinion should carry as much weight as scientific evidence.

[Prometheus]

Ive been checking the forums, seems any creativity is crackpotery and you must submit to what the authorities say

Any creative thinking here seems to be in the trash can or right next to it in speculations

If we take this forum as indicative of mainstream science i totally agree with the original poster

Seems people tend to think the truth is democratical or what is even worse dictated by the guys who have the thickes glasses

 

Creativity isn't the same as making up anything you want. By analogy consider the difference between a doodle by a toddler and the works of cubist artists. You might argue that both are creative processes but one has no value to society while the other provokes some response within society and so is useful. The difference is that the toddler has not learned how different brush strokes can evoke different emotions (i.e. has no technical ability) and has yet to learn about various societal norms upon which she could draw (e.g. having a crucifix in an image will inevitably provoke religious connotations and a toddler would be unaware of this, while the artist will use this knowledge).

 

Yet we rarely complain that the creativity of toddlers is being stifled just because they are being taught mastery of the arts. Yet this is exactly what people complain about when they say creativity is being thwarted in science when they are asked to gain a little mastery of the subject. Now, there may be a case to be made that a particular process to learn to master a subject stifles creativity. But this is a general problem far from unique to science. I have heard discussions from dancers about how best to master various moves and techniques without stifling the spontaneity they seek.

 

Many posters here do some kind of dance more akin to an seizure then cry their creativity is being stifled when no one listens. If you want to dance for your own sake, fine - dance like you're having a seizure. If you expect others to watch you and enjoy it, learn some techniques. And if you're here to learn some techniques then listen to what others have to say about your moves.

 

This is just an analogy - don't take any of it too literally.

[Strange]

Also, great scientists have to be extremely creative - but they also need the discipline to check their ideas before proclaiming that they are right.

[Phi for All]

Ive been checking the forums, seems any creativity is crackpotery and you must submit to what the authorities say

Any creative thinking here seems to be in the trash can or right next to it in speculations

If we take this forum as indicative of mainstream science i totally agree with the original poster

Seems people tend to think the truth is democratical or what is even worse dictated by the guys who have the thickes glasses

 

I've seen this argument many, many times over the last dozen years. It's almost always put forth by those who want the loosest possible rigor applied to their own "creativity". We're less rigorous than Physics Forum, and more rigorous than many other science discussion sites. Quit trying to drag them all down to a mediocre level.

[StringJunky]

 

I've seen this argument many, many times over the last dozen years.

That and referring to Galileo.

[Phi for All]

That and referring to Galileo.

 

He gets used a lot as a misunderstood scientist by those who don't understand him. Definitely a guy who learned the box so completely he could think well outside it.

[StringJunky]

 

He gets used a lot as a misunderstood scientist by those who don't understand him. Definitely a guy who learned the box so completely he could think well outside it.

This is it: you can't build castles in the sky.

[Hipaso]

Only true genius can think outside the box

 

Ordinary people must be kept controlled and docil and inside the box so they dont become annoying

Edited January 22, 2017 by Hipaso

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I am not sure if I should make a comment here , as I am probably viewed as one of the offenders here.

 

I do not do any deliberate attempt to muddle anything . However , I do have a strong belief that when the range of thinking Philosiphers over a few Centuaries Found themselves confronted with some very useful , repeatable models , which had some mathematical content . They went on to make predicted use out of this newly acquired modelling . This built up over the years to become the ' hard core science we are currently familiar with . ( and growing daily ) .

 

What I personally think , is that over these long years , the creative , art, feeling , and many other ' soft systems ', got left , forgotten , buried , in the annals of time as , because of their ' woolly ' characteristics , got more and more marginalised . And in some respects got viewed as almost an ' enemy .' To highly predictive science. I think there IS some lost worth and I would even go so far to say , we may be missing a 'BIG TRICK ' by marginalising this 'SOFT ' whatever it is . I would like to give it a name , but it has a habit of comming from the ' top down ' rather than the ' bottom up ' . In other words detail with strict formulae perhaps provide more reliable answers than ..

 

( watch your words Michael ) , atmospherically , mood , cloudy effects that can be easily passed by as not relevant .

 

I don't pretend to know the full impact of this on our future understanding of the cosmos , but I have the fondest beliefs that there is something (. QUITE PROFOUND IN WHAT I AM POINTING OUT ) !

 

I think it is on a par with one man looking at all the atomic structure , and the botanist looking in great detail at the reason behind the behaviour of plants etc , To get meaning to everything .

And another man looking at the clouds , atmosphere and space objects like stars and galaxies to give the answers to the meaning and profundity of the universe . They come from different approaches and yet they probably are BOTH VALID APPROACHES for different aspects of the same Cosmos .

 

( Stand back Michael and watch all hell break loose )

 

Mike

Edited January 22, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

If you are looking for "meaning" then you might find that in art, poetry, religion and maybe even science.

 

But if you want something useful that *works* then only science will do.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you are looking for "meaning" then you might find that in art, poetry, religion and maybe even science.

But if you want something useful that *works* then only science will do.

.

 

Is there not a case for one ( type of consideration) , will assist and contribute in some way to the other.

And visa versa ( the other way round ) ?

 

I am sure I could drum up an example where ' the mechanics of a scientific process ' is less effective , or less efficient , or less whatever , if only the mechanics are considered. However that a greater efficiency , or performance increase, or whatever increase , is found if , say a sprinkling of ' art, poetry, religion ' are incorporated in the overall ENHANCED MACHINE ( which science alone would not normally have considered ? )

 

Mike

Edited January 22, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

I can see where the ' Chink ' emanates from ! .

 

Looking back at the early birth of Philosephy in Greek times . You can see how science soon grew out of this region of endeavour and thinking .

 

It's now possible to uncover where the split came from directionless ' philosophical like ' thought , and rigorous scientific, investigative , observational based , mathmatical orientated , model based SCIENCE , started to split off .

 

Mike

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tkadm30]

Scientific imagination is critical to develop new theories based on the evidences of the beauty of nature. It is an artistic talent to recognize the capacity of the mind to illustrate scientific discoveries into abstract models through experimentation and observation. The artistic value of an "experimentation" should be defined as the mind power (creativity) to understand the logicality of nature.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Scientific imagination is critical to develop new theories based on the evidences of the beauty of nature. It is an artistic talent to recognize the capacity of the mind to illustrate scientific discoveries into abstract models through experimentation and observation. The artistic value of an "experimentation" should be defined as the mind power (creativity) to understand the logicality of nature.

.

I must say I do like your comment (+1 ) . You sound just the sort of Philosopher , that I am looking for , to epitomise what got left behind , when science took such a ' Hard Right ' turn into the annals of ( observation- model - maths - prediction - test - verification ) , and no room for anything which does not fit this strict sequence . Keeping this stance up to today . Not that the above named sequence is wrong . It's just that it is NOT a whole picture of Nature . There is far more to be had .

 

I am looking to find a descriptor and code of practice which could describe a philosophical practice which offers science an additional new route into the future. This route I beleive was followed , in principle , by many of the pioneers of science in the very early years as illustrated above in Greece ( post # 18 ) , and up through middle history , but has been forgotten in recent years, where absolute precision is sought at the expense of ' ploughing new furrows' . It makes a refreshing change to hear your comments . Thank you .

 

Mike

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP]

RE: Mike post 20: No one is stopping anybody from dreaming up whatever rubbish they wish to daydream about. I gave him +1 too.... although now I think I might have been too hasty and might have actually misunderstood what he was getting at. As I said - no-one is stopping you - plough away - just don't state random musings as fact and don't expect anyone else to share your enthusiasm beyond the kind of people that will get excited by what they hear, spout a load of rubbish of their own and get absolutely no-where with it.

Edited January 26, 2017 by DrP

[tkadm30]

Thanks guys. I don't mean to have higher creativity skills, but that imagination flows together with experimentation. I might be learning the scientific method the hard way by studying Arts, but I find the connections between art and science highly relevant in creating experimental theories.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Thanks guys. I don't mean to have higher creativity skills, but that imagination flows together with experimentation. I might be learning the scientific method the hard way by studying Arts, but I find the connections between art and science highly relevant in creating experimental theories.

 

.

 

Join the Club ! Though I think the Club membership , for this particular Club we are discussing here, is low in numbers ! However it is rather fun , if you can accept failing to come up with the goodies most of the time . But get such a buzz when you get it right !

 

Mike

 

" Imagination Flows " .... I like that phrase , can I borrow it ?.. It sounds rather comforting , like floating down river on a warm bed of flowing ' Chocolate ' ... Great fun !

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP]

I am a scientist... I do art and music too. I come up with 'creative' solutions to industrial problems. I agree - being creative in science can be great. You need to keep an open mind..... just not so open that it actually falls right out of your head though! Some stuff is tried and tested already. Science mainly goes forward by standing on the shoulders of giants... not daydreaming in the playground.

[Strange]

Scientific imagination is critical to develop new theories based on the evidences of the beauty of nature. It is an artistic talent to recognize the capacity of the mind to illustrate scientific discoveries into abstract models through experimentation and observation. The artistic value of an "experimentation" should be defined as the mind power (creativity) to understand the logicality of nature.

 

 

But never forget that, in science, these creative endeavours have to be tested (experimentally) against reality. Otherwise they are just-so stories.