Ann,
With respect, I think that our discussion has exhausted itself. Your premises,
basically, are not mine.. So no, again with respect, I do not give permission
for you to use my comments in any context admixed with yours..
You basically do not understand what science is. And your attempts to bend it
to your will are not productive from my point of view. Please let our
discussions end. Keep me out of your further comments.
I know this sounds harsh, but I am sorry.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Wimberly
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and art ways forward together
Didn't both scientists and engineers play key roles in the development of
nuclear weapons? Oppenheimer was one of the leading managers of the Manhattan
Project, for instance.
Frank
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 4:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and art ways forward together
I know I shouldn't say this, but I can't resist. You guys are being much too
polite. Are there any issues about which you differ. You can't possibly agree
about everything!
I'll even start by disagreeing with this statement of Ann's.
science has helped to create and reflect the most fearful expression of the
human spirit, nuclear weapons.
It's important I think to distinguish between science and engineering.
Science discovered that matter could be converted into energy. Engineering used
that knowledge to create nuclear weapons. In saying this I'm not denigrating
engineering, which I think is an important and honorable discipline--to harness
the forces of nature for the good of mankind humankind. But science and
engineering are different disciplines, and I think we should be clear about
their differences.
-- Russ
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <ad...@wkbank.com> wrote:
--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com[1]
Dear Jack, It is a pleasure to read your thoughtful response and an
honor that you would take the time to elaborate and question/caution
on a number of points. In that spirit I would like to respond and
engage you a bit further on this subject. It is my intent and my hope
to clarify, express and value this thread of discussion on science and
art. May I have your permission to post our interaction below on the
World Knowledge Bank website www.wkbank.com, free of charge of course?
I have taken the tack to interleave my responses below. Ann Racuya-Robbins
Ann,
It is my understanding that the Santa Fe Complex and FRIAM have
thought it a good idea to engage in a discussion over the respective
roles for the future of the arts and sciences, as well as technology.
I am sure that your comments are a huge contribution to that
interaction. And I, for one, welcome them and find them helpful to my
own thinking. Much of what I say here is consistent with, and very
appreciative of, your comments.
I celebrate the Santa Fe Complex and FRIAM's thought to engage a
discussion over the respective roles for the future of the arts and
sciences, as well as technology. (I will leave issues of technology
for a later time.) This is especially so now that the city of Santa Fe
has shown its interest in supporting the Complex. As we know Santa Fe
is a community of many artists. For such a discussion to take place it
is important for both artists and scientists speak. Some of my artist
friends and colleagues have little interest in this conversation for a
variety of reasons spanning, "I have a different kind of intelligence"
to "scientists think they already know everything." The latter being a
crude and ill informed attitude. Are there arrogant scientists? Of
course. As well there are arrogant artists. Arrogance is a defect that
visits many of us. I think it is fair to summarize that there are
fears on both sides that make this discussion difficult. While I have
not met with universal welcome here at FRIAM and the Santa Fe Complex,
many have been gracious and respectful and I encourage artists to
join in this discussion.
Of course, as you said, in effect, no false dichotomy ought to enter
those discussions. You made the important point that the sciences
should not be viewed as above the arts in any hierarchy. I would also
add that the reverse would not be appropriate either. Many of our
great universities have among their schools what is often referred to
as the flagship school, one called the School of Arts and Sciences, in
recognition of their central and dual roles in education. If anything
is neglected in that pursuit, it is generally the basic sciences, the
ignorance of which too often breeds disdain rather than humility and
the desire for amelioration. I hasten to point out that I am sure this
is not where you are coming from.
You know all of this, so I can hear you saying, Why all of this background?
Because it needs reiteration: Many supporting a key role for the arts
would say that we have lost our way with science. They would argue
that we must install the arts over the sciences because we have lost
our way with science.
I too disdain hierarchy as a mode of progress and see nothing
accomplished by placing one over the other regardless of the order.
They need to be reminded that the sciences have helped liberate
mankind from mental slavery to superstition-- burning of witches at
the stake, to take one "trivial" example. The plagues of the 14th
century were attributed to all kinds of causes, many of which we would
find laughable (as well as tear- making to those victimized by false
theories). It is science and its methods that have helped free us of
these horrors.
A number of the statements in the preceding paragraph need further
exploration however. "The sciences have helped liberate mankind from
mental slavery to superstition". Might not "humanity or the human
spirit" be preferabe to "mankind"? I am somewhat confused as to why
you put quotation marks around trivial. Can you explain that a bit
more? These are important issues but not critical since I can sense
the sensitivity, kindness and generosity of your manner.
I think the more accurate statement is that sometimes, maybe even,
more often than not, the sciences have helped liberate mankind from
mental slavery to superstition. Further I think it is important to
qualify this assertion by acknowledging that science has also created
some superstitions of its own, or put another way has held on to the
validity of "facts and theories" that have proved incorrect and
harmful later on and has dismissed as errant approaches that have
later on proved more correct and helpful. I cite here the dismissal of
epigenetics and the work of Mendel and Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock.
I am not aware of the role that science has played in ending the
tragic practice of burning witches. Could you elaborate a bit on
science's role?
The causes and epidemiology of the plagues of the 14th century have
only been recently better understood, much too late to benefit those
who suffered from them. Further, understanding the causes of the
plague relies on medicine which I would argue is an unusual science,
even more so than biology, because almost every issue in medicine
involves as much discussion of values and life as rigorous scientific
method. To put this another way. from my point of view medicine, for
all its flaws is a good example of a human investigative enterprise in
that it relies on many forms of human understanding to support an
underlying positive value for life.
The rigor of the sciences includes testable hypotheses, consistency
with what is known, requirements of predictable further tests.(Some
would also add "falsifiability", as has been claimed to be necessary
by Karl Popper, a famous 20th century philosopher). What has made
mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need
for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction.
"There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the
hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary
to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." Enrico Fermi
This attitude of Fermi's is similar to the way many artists approach
their process. There is joy, insight and information in the unexpected
that is as important as arriving exactly where you thought you were
going.
Of course I believe it has been long understood that it is in the
selection and construction of the hypotheses where much of the
questionable practices of sciences lies. Who decides which questions
to ask? How they are asked,? Whom or what are they asked of? How is
the study funded? Given that science is a practice with a specialized
vocabulary, which has been practiced primarily by western white men,
who make their living from creating hypotheses, I think it is
legitimate to question the values underlying the creation of
hypotheses. A most common example is the until recently paucity of
health studies that include women or men and women of different races.
A specialized vocabulary can be a wonderful thing in allowing a range
of expression less agilely done otherwise. I would like to know and
have taken it as a gift to be able to learn as many languages,
vocabularies and modes of communication as I can. But I don't hold to
the view that only the most proficient in a language and vocabulary
have the most to say with that language and vocabulary. Human
understanding and communication is much more powerful and mysterious
than can be reduced to mere facility with vocabulary.
Further this requirement of "consistency with what is known" sets up a
tautology between the hypothesis and the known world which is
confounded by needing to create predictable further tests. If you set
up a logical consistency to your argument or hypothesis you may not
create predictable further tests but this very lack of predictability
does not bring more light to bear on the complexities or nature of the
"logical consistency" where much of the misdeeds of science lies, if
and when they do occur.
One might, strangely enough, dismiss the scientific discipline
precisely on these grounds. But it is this very straitjacket that is
the glory of science, and what it has done to advance understanding of where
we are in the natural world. It is a wonder that we can look
into the cosmos and the particle and understand so much that was
denied our forebears. There is something spiritually uplifting in such
an unveiling. [The role of emergence is well known to many FRIAMS, but that
is another promising story]
"It is a wonder that we can look into the cosmos and the particle and
understand so much that was denied our forebears." I
agree it is a wonder! I agree that this very straitjacket is the glory
of science! I agree that there is something spiritually uplifting in
such an unveiling! I would add however that it is a wonder added to
many other wonders of our understanding. More than that I would say
that the more complex and complete truth is that this insight was not
so much denied to our forebears as that our forebears were interested
in, (maybe even blinded) in understanding something different and for
different reasons. I do not agree that this wonder and its
understanding is a priori better or more complete. To me the best and
most complete understanding is the variously weighted aggregate of
them all.
Those who decry science for this very same reason say, There's more,
and science doesn't directly address all of that. Of course! That's
why we must all pursue those domains that have the study of values as their
objective, as you point out. The fully realized person pursues
what both the sciences and the arts offer.
I hope nothing I have said infers a decrying of science or an
encouragement of decrying science. I am working with best effort
(although I am sure I can still improve) to signal the sincerity of
the discussion on all parts.
I would say though that if any human activity should be strong enough
to stand up to respectful and considered questioning it is science.
If there is some "acid test" for who can question science, that should
be made clear and be defensible. I myself know of no such acid test.
For me the greatest questions I have of science surround the premise
that science is or can be a domain outside of values. So long as it is
done by mere mortals science like every other human activity stands on
the quality of the character of those that practice it. Development of
character is a lifelong ambition and one we all need and may want to
work on.
Hierarchical thinking often comes out of disdain bred of ignorance or fear. I
am sure that is not the motivation of any of your contributors to
our discussions. And I agree, this may be a time in human history when the
arts need increasingly to come to our aid. I surely have made that point in my
own writings and teaching.
All well and good, you will agree. And what does all of this have to
do with your basic point about the need to look at the arts afresh and
their potential to do some heavy lifting now? I agree that this is a
need.
So, I am sure you didn't mean, in the context of your mention of
philosophy, another hierarchy. Susan Langer, whom you mention (and
whom I also admire, along with many of the classical philosophers,
such as Hume, Spinosa, Berkeley?) would also disdain the hierarchies
we have discussed.
I confess that my comment about science acting more like religion than
philosophy emerged without proper foundation. While I am not sure you
would welcome or have the patience for the disclosure of this
foundation, I am happy to provide one if you would like. I do hold to
the ironic insight, intuition and position that to the extent that
science claims a greater standing in the understanding the world based
on testing repeatability and distance from values it tends to act more
like religion. Specifically it does this by establishing a set of
"rules" if not truths that have a socially and politically
hierarchical role which is largely without accountability. In many
religions, certainly most of western religions only God can establish
rules(constants) whose values cannot be questioned.
I know of no areas of human activity or understanding that lie outside
of the domain of values, although there may well be one or one may
emerge. To put this more strongly, I know of now no areas of human
activity or understanding that are better for lying outside the domain
of values. Even the physical constants (speed of light and so on)
remain constant only when qualified to the degree of certainty allowed
by their instruments of measurement. The fact that...some mathematics
used by contemporary science creates an illusion of "without
fuzziness" or as I would describe it "being out of time"...is no more a
testament that what it describes is out of time than that line
drawings creating the illusion of dimensionality is actually the
dimensionality it draws illusion to.
Most problematic of all is that science has helped to create and
reflect the most fearful expression of the human spirit, nuclear
weapons. I am somewhat well versed in the history of the American
creation of nuclear weapons. I am well versed enough at least to
understand, even be sympathetic to the historical complexities out of
which these weapons arose. Even though many scientists are working
quietly and often behind the scenes to remove, limit and withdraw
nuclear weapons, science, especially physics, has yet to lead or
demonstrate ways of removing, limiting and withdrawing nuclear weapons
from the future prospect of the world. Or bringing the conversation
of how to limit, remove and withdraw nuclear weapons to the public and
even to our political leaders. Maybe for this reason science and
scientists feel under attack. Attacking science and scientists is
wrong and counter to moving forward. Lets figure out how to
reinvigorate the conversation about limiting, removing and withdrawing
the nuclear weapons prospect from the world by bringing art and
science and all forms of understanding together in respectful
interaction. Lets pioneer antidotes, sequestrations and confinements.
However we got here the nuclear weapons problem now belongs to all of
us.
I'm sure you well know that a sound philosophical system must be
internally consistent. This it shares with a sound theory in physics.
But an important difference is that each of the particular
philosophical systems is dependent on its own, often distinct, premises.
My toughest test for a sound philosophical system is not that it be
internally consistent. A philosophical system that can express,
contain and value paradox and ambiguity is, as in some aspects of
Buddhism (in my view more a philosophy than a religion although both),
much more valuable. But in any event for me the toughest test of a
philosophical system is the degree and extent to which it brings
meaning to human existence and experience.
Aristotle's natural philosophy, which we now call physics, was
followed for about 2000 years, and was finally found wanting by the
thinking of Galileo and Newton. More recently, when we thought there
were seven planets about the sun, a famous philosopher (Was it Hegel? I will
look it up.) showed why that would have to be the case, on philosphical
grounds.. That is, until there were found to be more than seven planets. And,
of course, we all know something about the
religious and philosophical arguments about why the sun goes around the earth.
One of my heroes is Galileo. Not simply because he helped reveal
through measurement principles underlying falling bodies and helped
underscore through instruments a heliocentric few of the solar system
but because he courageously and peacefully pursued his intuition with
instruments so that others could see through his eyes. It is his
character that I most admire.
Importantly though, Galileo was not the first to find Aristotle's
natural philosophy wanting. There were for example, heliocentric
theories among the Greeks. Aristarchus of Samos about 310-230 BC held
such a heliocentric view in which the Earth rotated around the Sun as
well as other heliocentric insights.
Akhenaton, the Egyptian pharaoh, decided that the sun was the source
of life and the organizing principle of the world and reformed
Egyptian civilization to reflect his decision. Certainly this is
another kind of heliocentric few. My sense is that both heliocentric
views have insight and meaning in addition of Galileo's. A discussion
of why these earlier heliocentric views did not gain currency is
beyond the scope of these comments.
All of our disciplines need each other. And again, nothing I have said
is in opposition to the view that the arts are needed to serve as a
guide in this time more than ever. This is an idea you have so
eloquently expressed.
I heard the folk poet Jim Wayne Miller a long time ago say that we
need the "world of born as well as the world of made". We need to
realize that many of our intellectual struggles belong to the world of
born. This includes the sciences as well as the arts. They reinforce
each other in our efforts to be truly human. We agree that the arts
must assume a special role in this time in intellectual history.
Jack
About this we are in complete agreement! All disciplines need each
other! I hope my comments have articulated some new ways in which we
can move forward together.
Respectfully,
Ann
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
