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

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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

Yes but how do you measure creativity , that you may give it a value when you test it ?

 

Mike

[Phi for All]

Yes but how do you measure creativity , that you may give it a value when you test it ?

 

In this instance, isn't the value of creativity calculable by how well its revelations compare with reality? Reality isn't concerned with your concepts of beauty or creativity. If you model your theory mathematically, you don't need creativity in the equation because it was there the moment your creativity showed you how to better test your idea against reality.

[Outrider]

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning

Yeah as others have said I think they go hand in hand.

All the imagination and creativity in the world ain't worth 2 cents if you can't express it.

What has the scientific method given us? A million and one ways to do just that(express ourselves).

[StringJunky]

Yes but how do you measure creativity , that you may give it a value when you test it ?

 

Mike

You don't need to measure it. It is enough to know that you've put another piece in the bridge that leads into the unknown.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

ALL

.

Oooh ! . I can feel there is something there in the last three posts !

But I am not sure I properly understand what is being said .

 

Are you saying " you don't need creativity? If so , I can't see that . Because surely creativity is one of the portals to advancement and the future.

 

Yes I understand that testing and the scientific method is a way to understanding reality. But I had fond ideas that ' creativity ' would lead us to even Greater depths of understanding of New descoveries as to the nature of the Cosmos ?

 

Mike

[StringJunky]

But I had fond ideas that ' creativity ' would lead us to even Greater depths of understanding of New descoveries as to the nature of the Cosmos ?

 

Mike

Isn't that what science is doing all the time but in patient, small, methodical steps? If you are thinking of the paradigm-changing ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein, then they only happen every couple or three centuries... only about two hundred years to wait for the next one. Puts it in perspective just how rare this level of mind is... doesn't it? And to think we get a budding "Galileo" here every week!

Edited January 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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

.

Yes, But there may be a requirement for a moment of caution here surely . Because we might think we are testing against reality . When in fact our current belief as to " what is real " may in fact NOT BE REAL .( or correct ,at this moment ) .As we may just be harbouring an understanding which is not quite right , currently ?

 

I know that sounds a bit convoluted , but , when pioneering for ' possible new understanding ' , there is not much firm ground to stand on around you , if you are looking for something ' New ' ! A bit like ' venturing out on thin ice '.

 

Mike

Edited January 28, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[StringJunky]

.

Yes, But there may be a requirement for a moment of caution here surely . Because we might think we are testing against reality . When in fact our current belief as to " what is real " may in fact NOT BE REAL .( or correct ,at this moment ) .As we may just be harbouring an understanding which is not quite right , currently ?

 

I know that sounds a bit convoluted , but , when pioneering for ' possible new understanding ' , there is not much firm ground to stand on around you , if you are looking for something ' New ' ! A bit like ' venturing out on thin ice '.

 

Mike

You venture onto the "ice" whilst holding on to what you already know. New ideas come from new permutations of old and new data.

[paragaster]

Sophisticated Utra Modern Scientific Applications like AI(Artificial Intelligence) work when mathematical rules are creatively applied. As Science and Technology grow vertically, the very cream of inventions are unpredictable and dangerous.

[tkadm30]

I think scientific imagination require a good dose of creativity to create experimental theories; To think like a scientist does not imply to ignore imagination for representing reality...

[Phi for All]

Are you saying " you don't need creativity?

 

What I'm saying is that creativity and objectivity are like wave state and particle state, in that it's not a "one or the other" situation. They're inseparable aspects of scientific enquiry. And that's really all the further that analogy should go, btw.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes , but that is assuming what you currently 'think ' is reality , is in fact only a part of reality.

There may exist a yet undercovered, unaware part of reality , attatched to you current understanding , but as yet , an unaware component of the subject.

 

Let us suppose the subject of research is like a tree well rooted on the edge of a pond .

All the poking and prodding at the tree produce the predicted responses. Science proving the existing knowledge.

 

However the upper branches of this tree have a top uppermost branch overhanging the adjacent pond .

 

An Adventurous professor is of the creative belief that under special conditions of temperature and water availability such a tree is capable of producing golden looking apples on its uppermost branches if the branches reach at least

100 ft high . The professor walks out on thin ice . He is out of reach of the main trunk near the shore of the pond . He can hear the ice cracking , he cannot reach back for security . He believes , creatively in the presence of a golden apple , and reaches creatively for his belief ........

 

Was he doing wrong ? Against all odds right as he felt the thin ice crack below as he reached for the golden apple that did in fact exist !

 

Mike

[StringJunky]

Yes , but that is assuming what you currently 'think ' is reality , is in fact only a part of reality.

There may exist a yet undercovered, unaware part of reality , attatched to you current understanding , but as yet , an unaware component of the subject.

That is a given.That's why science has 'theories' and not 'truths'.

[mohamed777]

science is imposing the view of the majority on everybody, there are lot of schools for that

 

if you still dont subjugate to the majoritarial view youre declared a crackpot locked up and tortured by electroshock and chemical lobotomization

 

yeah we live great times at least in medieval age in afrika and america we did fine till you came and impose your truth now only some tenths of people lve away from the corromping white man in brazil

Edited February 2, 2017 by mohamed777

[Phi for All]

science is imposing the view of the majority on everybody, there are lot of schools for that

 

if you still dont subjugate to the majoritarial view youre declared a crackpot locked up and tortured by electroshock and chemical lobotomization

 

yeah we live great times at least in medieval age in afrika and america we did fine till you came and impose your truth now only some tenths of people lve away from the corromping white man in brazil

 

It's a popular fiction, mostly supported by the intellectually dishonest. You wave your hands and rant and think we don't see you have no evidence to support yourself.

 

What's insane is that you don't listen, you keep your mouth full, your brain empty, and you waste all the chances you've had with all your different sockpuppet accounts. All the while complaining OTHERS are hidebound.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What were these two Philosiphers talking about in Greece , on the Acropolis , all those centuries ago . Was it science in its infancy , was it how shadows are cast , was it the beauty of things , was it life and it's wonder , was it art, was it the stars above , how big is the universe , what is life all about ?

 

 

MIKE

[2blade]

i think cracpoterry aka madness aka insanity is seen today as homosexuality or being black was seen in the past

 

i bet 50 years ago it would be easy to read in the headlines of the papers a black guy slaughtered five people or an homosexual slaughtered five people

 

you just couldnt read this today, these minorities fought for their rights and got them adknoledged

 

but on the other hand today you read on the headlines most of the times: an schizophrenic slaughters five people

 

so is it any relevance on the murderer being an schizophrenic, are they meaning being schizophrenic implies being a murder as in the past being an homo or black implied being a criminal?

 

yes thats what the headlines subliminally are telling that being schizophrenic is wrong as was wrong being homo or black in the past

 

not only that, enforcing meds on schizos is no different than enforcing masculine hormones on homos or enforcing skin bleach on black people as jackson did

 

and thats what annoys me the most from every science forum that being a crackpot, being schizophrenic is reason enough to ban a person

 

again thats like if you were banning homosexuals or black people

 

and every scince forum is like that theres no where to go

 

even the flat earth society is an science forum under disguise with the objective to put down crackpot ideas and if in ultimate case the crackpot is tuff and he is seeding doubt just ban him

 

ill say in your favour that all you do is kill avatars but at least you dont kill ideas

 

killing ideas, killing words is sickly pervrse youre killing the product fo a soul, info something immaterial and etheral, and thats what a censor, does, a cnesor is even worse than an executioner

 

and a last thing:

 

i would be ddeply upset if i was a mentally normal person in a world where the norm is having lunch while watching a crystall ball thats telling me of famines rapes wars murders till i get absolutly desensitivized about what happens to my fellows

What were these two Philosiphers talking about in Greece , on the Acropolis , all those centuries ago . Was it science in its infancy , was it how shadows are cast , was it the beauty of things , was it life and it's wonder , was it art, was it the stars above , how big is the universe , what is life all about ?

image.jpeg

MIKE

nice artwork and totally agree with you:

 

nowadays scince is dry and dead it should incorporate some spirituality philosophy and art

 

i bet youre not allowed to make new threads you make too much sense

Edited February 5, 2017 by 2blade

[Phi for All]

i think cracpoterry aka madness aka insanity is seen today as homosexuality or being black was seen in the past

 

Everything after this in your post seems to rail against a caricature of science and scientists, so I'll just comment on this opinion. Our working definition of crackpottery here is making guesses that have no rational support, and stating them as fact, or claiming it's "a theory". Since most crackpots think theory means guesswork and speculation, they have problems here. They're wrong because they aren't using science to discuss science on a science discussion forum. It has NOTHING to do with their ideas, no matter how wild. It has to do with how they don't support themselves with evidence the way you're supposed to.

 

So really it's nothing like being homosexual or black was in the past. NOTHING is going to make a crackpot right until they can support their ideas with evidence. Does that make sense?

[2blade]

nobody holds the truth, at least we can not know for sure

 

but the fact of using the word crackpot is the same than 50 years ago or even some today refer to homosecuals with the word faggot as an ad homine and fallacy but accepted argument for the truth

 

both faggot and cracpot refer disdainfull to an atribute of the personality

 

newtons theory of gravitation is aboslutley incomplete for he assumed spot masses

 

this wouldnt be allowed to a crackpot

 

eisntein curve space was started like a domino by a flaw proof

 

this proof wouldnt be allowed to a crackpot

 

in fact if enisten had been born today he wouldnt have accepted the norm and would post creative things and certainly he would be dcleared a crackpot and persona non grata, a different thing would be what history would say

 

come on look at the guy he looks like a total crackpot:

 

[Phi for All]

come on look at the guy he looks like a total crackpot:

 

 

Especially when he's photoshopped in front of an incorrect equation, as you've chosen to show. Again, you wave your hands about a caricature of what you think science is. You're wrong, and I think you realize it.

[hoola]

There is a fire sentience must go through to escape extinction. Reality is an informational device, and as such all things imaginable by sentient beings are described within the context of the mathematical bulk (sentient free will), and as a childish species we mistake them as our ideas, our "creativity", if you will. Thus the egoist adherence to faulty ideas as well as the good ones. We respond to these algorithmic extensions without the selectivity of maturity, and seems we have run out of time to attain it. A perfect example of this behavior is the last election. We have a masochistic side and express it in the subtle pain of casual self-injury and by seeing others in pain in overtly. Some art expresses choices before us as a culture, and proposes to show a future result of various immediate behaviors.

[Outrider]

This whole thing is just silly. I'm sending this to you via my phone which for the last couple of years has become the only computer I need and according to a few posters in this thread was invented and refined by persons with no imagination. Really, do some of you think that?

 

Here is a short list of scientists/artist alive and well today. They refute your notions. http://www.artandscience.org.uk/artists/

 

Also 2blade brought up Einstein who is often portrayed as some kind of anti-scie test rebel.

He was actually an accomplished mathematician before the age of 15.

He learned the book and then rewrote the book.

https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2013/07/27/science-myths-did-einstein-failed-his-fourth-grade-math-class/

 

Time Magazine gives us some more information:

 

In 1935, a rabbi in Princeton showed him a clipping of the Ripley’s column with the headline “Greatest living mathematician failed in mathematics.” Einstein laughed. “I never failed in mathematics,” he replied, correctly. “Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus.” In primary school, he was at the top of his class and “far above the school requirements” in math. By age 12, his sister recalled, “he already had a predilection for solving complicated problems in applied arithmetic,” and he decided to see if he could jump ahead by learning geometry and algebra on his own. His parents bought him the textbooks in advance so that he could master them over summer vacation. Not only did he learn the proofs in the books, he also tackled the new theories by trying to prove them on his own. He even came up on his own with a way to prove the Pythagorean theory

 

 

Albert was also a fine violinist.

Go figure.

[2blade]

in my heart i admire einstein but since so many admire him i rather to disdain him:

 

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.^[1] These criteria are:

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue)^[2]

 

-how certain are you than theres nothing bigger than infinite?

 

-how about this?

 

 

-so the turtle can not advance not even one meter, thats totally nuts and absurd

 

so i have news for you, youre actually insane but you havent noticed so far because the rest of the world is insane as well, its the norm

 

are you too convinced of some things, ring the bell thats the main sympton of delusion

 

myself i have built a reality on thick columns of uncertainty but in your reality once of those certain pillar crumbles all your reality will cramble like a castle of cards

 

the more certainties you have the more insane you are and the bigger the breakdown when a column falls and i can see many insane people here but the ones who ponder such a wacko things that of course they just PONDER them

[Strange]

in my heart i admire einstein but since so many admire him i rather to disdain him:

 

 

Why should anyone care?

 

 

 

how certain are you than theres nothing bigger than infinite?

 

I am fairly certain, based on mathematical proofs, that there are things bigger than infinity. An infinite number of them, in fact.

[Phi for All]

in my heart i admire einstein but since so many admire him i rather to disdain him:

 

When you posted that fake news picture and pointed at what a crackpot he was, that was your disdain, right? You had to use something fake to prove your point. It's obvious you had to force your disdain just to be contrary.