| Author |
Message |
    
Hitman84
bear cub
Username: Hitman84
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 5:41 am: |     |
What is the difference between art and science ?
I googled and got various answers which left me confused.
The best I could think of was that art is dependent on imagination whereas science is more real but then the header above says real science so what's the difference between science and real science.
Further, I just cannot understand why Martial arts is not Martial science ?
My Chess Blog
"Everything in the world is relative"
- Albert Einstein |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 6:28 am: | |
Science is testable. 100 experiments will show the same result. Example: Drop a rock off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. In all 100 instances, the rock will fall, it will hit the ground. It will take the same amount of time to hit the ground. Its acceleration will be constant (-9.81 m/s2).
Art is subjective. Ask 100 subjects to express their view of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in art and you will get 100 different answers. Take one painting of said tower and ask 100 subject to rate the painting and you will most likely get more than one answer. Science doesn't work that way.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Pine
flint knapper
Username: Pine
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 6:40 am: | |
Science also depends on imagination to progress, but the ideas that imagination brings up have to be tested in order to be accepted as basis for further advancement. Such testing sets an objective criterion in advance by which the idea will be considered supported or falsified.
With art, although there are things many people will agree are beautiful, there are no objective criteria for beauty. (And in the last century or so there is also a trend of creating art that is not intended to be beautiful.)
Cohen's Law: 'Unless you fail at more than 10% of the things you try, you aren't trying enough things.' |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 3003
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 3:07 pm: | |
In Scrabble, "art" is worth 3 points and "science" is worth 11 (independent of premium squares, secondary words, and bonuses).
Seriously, Scott and Pine described the differences well. But I would point out that there can be an "art" to science (a beauty in constructing thought experiments, for example) and a "science" to art (the precision of combined geometric figures). While the differences exist, there s some conceptual overlap.
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Hitman84
bear cub
Username: Hitman84
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 8:40 am: | |
thanks scott and pine.
cavebear thanks for clearing that one, that's where I got a bit confused.
My Chess Blog
"Everything in the world is relative"
- Albert Einstein |
Hitman84
bear cub
Username: Hitman84
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 1:07 pm: | |
So Real science is scientific theories that have a practical proof.
Science combines scientific theories that have a practical proof and those which do not have.
My Chess Blog
"Everything in the world is relative"
- Albert Einstein |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 3009
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 4:44 am: | |
Hitman, you are kind to treat my small joke seriously. 
The real difference (I think) is that art is utterly subjective. It is very accurate to say of art "I know what I like". You can have an opinion on art completely different from all others and still be totally justified. You could look at a piece of art voted "worst ever" and still like it yourself.
I personally see little of value in some forms of art that others admire greatly. My preference tends toward unusual art, like MC Escher, and I have a strong tendency toward art with large solid colors and/or geometric forms. I also find photo-realism interesting.
That doesn't mean someone else can't equally value abstract or classical or minimalist paintings. It just means those are their choices.
Science is quite different, however. It isn't even the conclusions that are important so much as the process. Scientific conclusions change when new information is discovered, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the logical methodology of interpreting the available information.
Evaluations of art are not testable (by any way we know of now), but science is testable. Indeed, that is the very foundation of science. It must be testable (a possible positive or false conclusion). It must be verifiable (or disprovable) by others. It must apply to all situations regardless of location.
To put it concisely, art is personal and individual; science must be true for all.
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Hitman84
gatherer
Username: Hitman84
Post Number: 58
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 7:20 am: | |
cavebear,
I was'nt surprised reading your joke its one of the symptoms of internet addiction 
On a serious note, thanks for the explanation.
I'll reply to your post after I decipher the meaning and draw out a conclusion which might change when I get back a reply but that does'nt diminish the importance of the discussion.
My Chess Blog
"Everything in the world is relative"
- Albert Einstein |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 3021
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 11:52 pm: | |
Well, make sure the string doesn't interfere with the quantum of your reality.
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
The Questions and Answers Game