Does Science Kill the Magic?

[Drkshadow03]

I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.

I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.

Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.

Like I said before, there are definitely beautiful and aesthetically pleasing elements to science or to be more exact the things science studies (astronomical features, crystal/mineral/rock formations, etc.), but that doesn't make it an art.

Any aesthetic qualities are secondary to discovering facts and rules governing the natural world, whereas producing aesthetic beauty is one of the primary purposes of art. Science really is only a unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world.

[Climacus]

We disagree rotundly. And I think it is obvious that you are labeling scientists philosophically (methodogical naturalists = strightjacket) to dispose of the argument in the brutal way philosophers have always used.

I'm labelling scientists to dispose of an argument? What argument are you talking about? Arguments have propositions in the form of premises and a conclusion. So far, you haven't put any forward.

Anyway, remember I said "scientists qua scientists" - that is, scientists acting as scientists. And by definition, scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists. There's nothing wrong with that. ("Methodological naturalist" is not a pejorative term.) Science wouldn't work otherwise. But that means that extra-scientific propositions like "A spiritual realm exists" are neither provable nor disprovable by science as such. They're just off the table, not open for discussion.

Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

[Climacus]

Like I said before, there are definitely beautiful and aesthetically pleasing elements to science or to be more exact the things science studies (astronomical features, crystal/mineral/rock formations, etc.), but that doesn't make it an art.

Any aesthetic qualities are secondary to discovering facts and rules governing the natural world, whereas producing aesthetic beauty is one of the primary purposes of art. Science really is only a unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world.

You're on the right track here, I think. But I would make the case stronger and say that producing beauty is the primary purpose of art. There's so much confusion about what art is. Is it knowledge? Truth? But these things are related to art as matter is to form. As one philosopher put it, where the fine arts are concerned, "philosophy is the handmaid of beauty: philosophia ancilla artis."

[cafolini]

Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

If it is three-dimensional, yes. If it is two-dimesional, only as such.

[Drkshadow03]

You're on the right track here, I think. But I would make the case stronger and say that producing beauty is the primary purpose of art. There's so much confusion about what art is. Is it knowledge? Truth? But these things are related to art as matter is to form. As one philosopher put it, where the fine arts are concerned, "philosophy is the handmaid of beauty: philosophia ancilla artis."

Eh, I see aesthetics being one of the purposes of art rather than the only purpose. Overemphasizing "beauty" as the only purpose of art tends to lead to overly formalistic interpretations that ignores the important content and social/philosophical issues much art attempts to tackle.

[Theunderground]

Three and two dimensional are only imaginary definitional concepts cafolini.
Come on,you cant be this obtuse. All the great sceintists have an 'artistic streak',but the dogmatic naturalists have a priori and philosophically ruled out anything beyond the physical. I think no one in their right mind would deny a thought or emotion but do we apprehend it in a physical form that science can look at objectively? No!science cannot even prove that other people have thoughts or emotions,but common sense and art definately can. Science is the study and conceptualisation of physical processes,not the final word on the human condition. Philosophy is the study of logic and language and rational thought and likewise nothing more.
The End.

[cafolini]

Three and two dimensional are only imaginary definitional concepts cafolini.
Come on,you cant be this obtuse. All the great sceintists have an 'artistic streak',but the dogmatic naturalists have a priori and philosophically ruled out anything beyond the physical. I think no one in their right mind would deny a thought or emotion but do we apprehend it in a physical form that science can look at objectively? No!science cannot even prove that other people have thoughts or emotions,but common sense and art definately can. Science is the study and conceptualisation of physical processes,not the final word on the human condition. Philosophy is the study of logic and language and rational thought and likewise nothing more.
The End.

You show clearly that you have very little idea of scientific exploration and discovery in the 21st century.

[Climacus]

If it is three-dimensional, yes. If it is two-dimesional, only as such.

So. You are a proponent of scientism. That means you're in some self-referential trouble. It cannot possibly be that case "all that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable" because that proposition itself is not scientifically verifiable. And propositions in general are not scientifically verifiable. Neither are a priori logical nor mathematical truths - like modus ponens. They are not accessible to the scientific method, but are merely presupposed by science. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to understand the narrow demarcations of science.

[cafolini]

So. You are a proponent of scientism. That means you're in some self-referential trouble. It cannot possibly be that case "all that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable" because that proposition itself is not scientifically verifiable. And propositions in general are not scientifically verifiable. Neither are a priori logical nor mathematical truths - like modus ponens. They are not accessible to the scientific method, but are merely presupposed by science. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to understand the narrow demarcations of science.

I am not a proponent of anything at all, least of all any straightjacket philosophy like scientism. I am just looking at what's going on. The scientific method was an invention of another overcome philosopher, Rene Descartes. Who uses it, or rather pretend to use it without using it? Philosophers in a museum. This is enough.

[Climacus]

Eh, I see aesthetics being one of the purposes of art rather than the only purpose. Overemphasizing "beauty" as the only purpose of art tends to lead to overly formalistic interpretations that ignores the important content and social/philosophical issues much art attempts to tackle.

But it doesn't ignore those latter things. It sets them in their proper place, as means to an end, as matter to form. What differentiates the fine arts from other fields is the creation of beauty for beauty's sake. That, in Aristotelian terms (I'm looking at your avatar), is its specific difference. Art involves self-expression, meaning, knowledge, philosophy, and so on, and so on. But something doesn't become art by virtue of these things. Take Dante's Commedia. It contains a lot of philosophy and theology. But we read Dante neither for philosophy nor theology. (If we did, we would be misguided. Better to read philosophers and theologians.) We read it for its beauty, which philosophy and theology contribute to.

I know this seems oversimple, prima facie. But it is philosophically tenable. Stronger still, I think it's on-the-mark. A few philosophers of art have developed it fully: Étienne Gilson, for instance.

[Climacus]

I am not a proponent of anything at all, least of all any straightjacket philosophy like scientism.

All who agree with the proposition* are proponents of scientism. And you agree with the proposition . . . I'll let you draw the conclusion.

*"All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable." (Your dimensional qualifications don't alter anything here.)

[Ecurb]

All who agree with the proposition* are proponents of scientism. And you agree with the proposition . . . I'll let you draw the conclusion.

*"All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable." (Your dimensional qualifications don't alter anything here.)

"There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your Philsophy." -- Hamlet. (Philosophy meant "science", in those days.)

[Climacus]

"There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your Philsophy." -- Hamlet. (Philosophy meant "science", in those days.)

Not sure why you're pointing this in my direction. And, yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of philosophy. Thanks.

[mazHur]

that means that extra-scientific propositions like "A spiritual realm exists" are neither provable nor disprovable by science as such. They're just off the table, not open for discussion.

Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

I think there is flaw in your argument. Science is not science if it lets go unsolved mysteries yet known to man. A hundred years ago things that were thought to be impossible and in your words ' off the table, not open for discussion.'' are now ON the table and not only discussed but processed by science alone.

The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind or may touch the scientific query and curiosity.

[Climacus]

I think there is flaw in your argument. Science is not science if it lets go unsolved mysteries yet known to man. A hundred years ago things that were thought to be impossible and in your words ' off the table, not open for discussion.'' are now ON the table and not only discussed but processed by science alone.

No. If scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists, as is usually conceded today, then it's follows logically that much will be "off the table." In seeking to explain phenomena scientists qua scientists can not - not will not but can not - appeal to the supernatural. For science would stop at that point and philosophy would begin. So, again, extra-scientific propositions like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" are neither provable nor disprovable by science qua science. And, again, there's nothing wrong with that. (We can, of course, use science-informed premises in a philosophical argument for or against one of the above propositions.)

(Maybe you mean something like, "Phenomena previously explained only supernaturally are now explained naturally." Well and good. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.)

The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind . . .

No, it's not. Modern science does not investigate anything and everything. That would include science investigating the non-scientific, which is absurd. Modern science investigates that which is accessible to the scientific method - considerably less than everything (!). For instance, science doesn't and can't investigate a priori logical truths; it presupposes them.