What's more important, the arts or sciences?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Your civil tone indicates your skills in tact and courtesy have improved. For now, you are no longer on my "ignore" list.
The "if" in your comment is the key--I see no evidence at all that says the oceans will rise, fall, or stay the same over the next 100 years. We just don't know. And if we did, I doubt that man, and his puny efforts, could do anything about it.

There is plenty of evidence ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, but ice floating already won't raise the sea levels, but ice on land, like inland Antarctica or Greenland certainly will raise the ocean level, already has in fact. There is a village on a small low lying island in Alaska that recently had to be abandoned and the natives set up on the mainland because the whole island is going underwater, its about halfway there right now, all the town is mostly underwater now. So it's here and it's now. How much worse it will get is up in the air till further research elucidates the issue one way or the other. Still, it's a fact that glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate and that is a direct result of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, which is well documented to be a direct result of man's use of fossil fuels. If we don't get our act together we won't have cars at all and can kiss such scientific projects as the space program goodbye, we will have lost our chance to get off this planet and start over somewhere else which is the only way we can ensure the continued existence of the human race. If we can get viable colonies going on say, Mars, no matter what happens to the Earth, the human race goes on. All that is in real jeopardy if we don't get our environmental act together and soon. You may debate the soundness of making extraterrestrial colonies and such but it is an option we have now but may not have in the future and the whole planet can go back to a big winter condition or super dry, we don't know enough to say which way things are going but it sure is not going to stay in the rather benign state it is in now, we have had a free lunch for ten thousand years and that may be over in a rather short period of time. Look what happened to Europe in the dark ages, which was caused by a time of no sunspots, the 'little ice age' and drought, winter weather all summer long, no growing season, black plague, starvation, all added up to kill over 50 percent of the population and it took 500 years to recover from that. All that could come back but for the whole planet.

I do not see any such evidence. There seem to me to be just as many scientists who support your theory as there are who agree with me, that there is no cause for alarm. I just choose to accept their findings. No big deal--just difference of opinion.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I do not see any such evidence. There seem to me to be just as many scientists who support your theory as there are who agree with me, that there is no cause for alarm. I just choose to accept their findings. No big deal--just difference of opinion.

If stand near the big blue ocean ... and piss in a cup ... then look in the cup and say "water is yellow" ...

Then I can understand your reasoning ...

But - you are wrong.

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.

they are all byproducts of humanity, even if you removed the arts and sciences, they would be reinvented. we're the chicken and they are the eggs 🙂

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.

The only reason we have the arts at all is because science liberated us from the day to day toil of securing food and shelter. What amazes me is that the culture of political correctness wants to politicize science, i.e., global warming, social justice math, affirmative action for women in college science programs, etc., etc., etc.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The only reason we have the arts at all is because science liberated us from the day to day toil of securing food and shelter. What amazes me is that the culture of political correctness wants to politicize science, i.e., global warming, social justice math, affirmative action for women in college science programs, etc., etc., etc.

What's your response to Bosse saying that Shamens were full time artists when there was little or no technology?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are your friends any good? I know a bunch of artists too. I try not to let their work influence how I relate to them.

Yes, I knew that. What do you make of it?

Your final point -- so what? You also get more plastic crap. Who cares?

What art do you personally care about?

My housemate likes bizaare science fiction landscapes and cartoony drawings it seems like. His stuff's ok I guess, though I don't like him.

My other artist friend is a Dane who does semi-abstract work as a form of self-reflection. He's a close friend of the family and I love him as an old friend but his art doesn't particularly amaze me.

I like some of Picasso's stuff. Weeping Womana powerful piece. It used to give me nightmares.

I'm not a big art fan though. I don't have a lot of art experience to draw on.

Originally posted by flexmore
If stand near the big blue ocean ... and piss in a cup ... then look in the cup and say "water is yellow" ...

Then I can understand your reasoning ...

But - you are wrong.

I don't get the analogy, but I'm right😉

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't get the analogy, but I'm right😉

Take a read of this report: Don't know if anything will change your mind except hard experience but this seems to be the wave of the future:
http://www.physorg.com/news134235008.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Take a read of this report: Don't know if anything will change your mind except hard experience but this seems to be the wave of the future:
http://www.physorg.com/news134235008.html

Yep---heard it. And just today, heard another scientist say that Gore was "filling our children's heads with {feces} " and in 15-20 years, we will look back on all this pseudoscience with all the awe and respect we give astrology and phrenology.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is plenty of evidence ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, but ice floating already won't raise the sea levels, but ice on land, like inland Antarctica or Greenland certainly will raise the ocean level, already has in fact.

Unfortunately, the melting of ice floating in the sea will raise the sea level. Ice is actually less dense than water (hence the floating!) due to hydrogen bonds being formed during freezing. When ice melts, the hydrogen bonds break, and the volume increases, leading to greater volume of water than when it was water + ice.

Originally posted by kyngj
Unfortunately, the melting of ice floating in the sea will raise the sea level. Ice is actually less dense than water (hence the floating!) due to hydrogen bonds being formed during freezing. When ice melts, the hydrogen bonds break, and the volume increases, leading to greater volume of water than when it was water + ice.

The biggest rise of sea levels is when ice on dry land melts and runs into the ocean. Ice already in the ocean won't change the level much, even given the density situation. It's the ice in Greenland that will raise the ocean 50 feet or more. During the last ice age, the ocean level was 200 feet lower than today so it's already deeper from melted ice but I wouldn't hold on to ocean front property in Florida if I were you.

Originally posted by kyngj
Unfortunately, the melting of ice floating in the sea will raise the sea level. Ice is actually less dense than water (hence the floating!) due to hydrogen bonds being formed during freezing. When ice melts, the hydrogen bonds break, and the volume increases, leading to greater volume of water than when it was water + ice.

I am afraid you got your physics a bit wrong there! When ice melts, its volume decreases and does NOT increases! That is why ice is less dense than water!

When virtually any kind of solid melts, its volume normally increases, but frozen water is one of the extremely rare exceptions to that rule (and the only one I know of -can anyone tell me of any other exceptions? I would really like to know of some more exceptions) for it decreases in volume when it melts. This is because when water freezes, the water molecules arrange around each other in such a subtle way as to very slightly force open the gaps between them to make those gaps slightly extra wide thus decreasing the density as the water freezes (that’s why water expands as it freezes).

The overall effect is that when ice floating on ocean water melts, the sea level stays exactly as it is! So at least we don’t have to worry about that! But, of course, if ice on land melts then the see level will rise as the water drains off into the ocean!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I am afraid you got your physics a bit wrong there! When ice melts, its volume [b]decreases and does NOT increases! That is why ice is less dense than water!

When virtually any kind of solid melts, its volume normally increases, but frozen water is one of the extremely rare exceptions to that rule (and the only one I know of -ca ...[text shortened]... ourse, if ice on land melts then the see level will rise as the water drains off into the ocean![/b]

So that means science is more important than art?