Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Jun '08 10:56
    Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
    The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
  2. 30 Jun '08 11:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
    The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
    We would still be human if we lived in a cave and did nothing but gather fruit and berries to eat.

    Our lives would not be so enriched if we had no arts or sciences.

    A large part of the study of science is in fact art.

    Where do you place social interactions as those are probably what we value most in our lives.
  3. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    30 Jun '08 19:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We would still be human if we lived in a cave and did nothing but gather fruit and berries to eat.

    Our lives would not be so enriched if we had no arts or sciences.

    A large part of the study of science is in fact art.

    Where do you place social interactions as those are probably what we value most in our lives.
    I agree with you, I can marvel at a song, poem, painting, and so on,
    and at someone who through their reason make some profound
    discovery as well.
    Kelly
  4. 30 Jun '08 22:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
    The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
    Personally I believe both enrich our lives, but if i had to choose one I would lose science.

    Whilst being a scientist by trade, I would still be able to be appreciate the world without knowing so much about it, plus I hate a lot of the crap science has given us....... a less commercial / consumerism world would suit me fine.

    There are of course other things the world could lose before either of these choices.
  5. 01 Jul '08 08:40
    For me - science *is* art.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    01 Jul '08 17:34 / 2 edits
    The sciences. I do not buy my housemate's argument that Frank Lloyd Wright is as important as Newton and Einstein.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Jul '08 22:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The sciences. I do not buy my housemate's argument that Frank Lloyd Wright is as important as Newton and Einstein.
    Well maybe Newton OR Einstein
  8. 02 Jul '08 00:33
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    For me - science *is* art.
    The most beautiful things in life are mysterious the true source of all art and science.

    A.Einstein
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Jul '08 02:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well maybe Newton OR Einstein
    Umm...

    No.
  10. 02 Jul '08 05:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
    The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
    I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. The same creative force, the inner muse if you will, that spur the artistic spur the scientific as well.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Jul '08 06:41
    Without science to provide technology there is no time for art.
  12. 02 Jul '08 06:43
    Here's my 2 cents as a musician and a keen phycisist: art is science and science is art. One cannot do one without doing the other. If you come up with a beautiful formula or theory, who can say it isn't art? Newton's laws of motion were minimalistic art, beautiful in simplicity, quantum mechanics are more abstract but still they make me feel the same way art does. Music (for example) is nothing more than different frequencies combined to make beautiful sounds. It's just like physics: you have these basic theories (e.g. scales, modes, chords) you use when composing. But just like in science a good composer creates new rules (e.g tritonus, 2-5-1 turnaround instead of 5-4-1) to make new music. The same applies to every art form from literature to performance art (although I've never understood performance art but to each his own I guess)

    Whoa that was a lot of nonesense. Ah well hope you get my point anyway.
  13. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    02 Jul '08 07:41
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Without science to provide technology there is no time for art.
    No, even hunter-gatherer societies have (had) plenty of time for art. Of course you might consider opposable thumbs 'technology'. A good case can be made that modern industrialism has limited creative time and space significantly. Naturally that hinges on what you call 'creative'. Is the latest Indiana Jones art or just a good product? Is there a difference anymore?
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Jul '08 19:41
    Originally posted by Scyhte
    [b]Here's my 2 cents as a musician and a keen phycisist: art is science and science is art. One cannot do one without doing the other. If you come up with a beautiful formula or theory, who can say it isn't art? Newton's laws of motion were minimalistic art, beautiful in simplicity, quantum mechanics are more abstract but still they make me feel the same way art ...[text shortened]... his own I guess)

    Whoa that was a lot of nonesense. Ah well hope you get my point anyway.[/b
    What area of physics are you into? Student? My son-in-law Gandhi, has a phd in statistical physics, used to be called biophysics. I am just a photonics technician, still pretty high tech stuff, 21st century physics for sure. What music are you into? Are you aware of the round three of the music contest here at RHP? If you want to hear some music you would not think comes from chessplayers, go to the culture site and you can see the RHP music Tournie III thread and find the download and listen, there are 24 tracks there, three of them mine (I compose acoustic instrumental folk-like melodies and such) There is a guy, hydra something or other, who is a professional jazz guitarist who plays a 10 string guitar, unusual instrument, and he is a virtuoso at it. Gregflats is also a pro musician in Philly, there are some real musicians there. Check them out!
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Jul '08 21:18 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, even hunter-gatherer societies have (had) plenty of time for art. Of course you might consider opposable thumbs 'technology'. A good case can be made that modern industrialism has limited creative time and space significantly. Naturally that hinges on what you call 'creative'. Is the latest Indiana Jones art or just a good product? Is there a difference anymore?
    Hunter gatherer societies had time for art because they had clothes, worked stone tools and weapons, paints, brushes, medicine, maybe a calendar...

    What I doubt they had were full time artists. I know several full time artists myself.

    Bonobos, when supplied food and art supplies, become artists. Did you know that?

    http://www.greatapetrust.org/media/releases/2007/nr_55a07.php

    EDIT - I suppose using your fingernail to draw a nose in the dirt can be considered art, but you get MORE art with science. LOTS more.