science and art ways forward together

[Ann Racuya-Robbins-2]

   --
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

[Russ Abbott]

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 <[hidden email]> 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

[Frank Wimberly]

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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

[Russ Abbott]

A scientist may function as an engineer, and an engineer may function as a scientist. But that doesn't change the differences between science and engineering.

-- Russ

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Guys, (Frank excluded, as he obviously has a good grasp of  the realities of this particular bit of human nature): the attempt to distance the "scientists" from the "engineers", either in general, or in particular for their respective roles on the Manhattan Project is a crutch.  *Everybody* involved with that project knew what the potential destructive power of the end product of their labors would likely be.

I grew up in Los Alamos, 1950 - 1964, and then came back to work there from 1984 - 2005, and I'm here to to tell you that the scientists at Los Alamos have always known what the capabilities of that particular class of WMD were as well as did the the engineers who routinely turned the concepts into reality.  It is as true today as it was in the days of the Manhattan Project.  Why do you think there is such a disproportionate number of churches in Los Alamos, compared to average small town America?

Answer (Duh!):  guilt.

Scientists aren't any more special, or noble, or incisive than engineers.  Or vice versa.  Please get off that pulpit. They are just people who approach problems from different perspectives. 

--Doug

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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

[Steve Smith]

Frank Wimberly wrote:

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.

And more to the point, I think, it was Military and Political *Will* that lead to the development of nuclear weapons.   And today, Military, Political, and Economic *will* that continues it. 

While the Scientists and Engineers on the Manhattan project might have been practicing their Science and Engineering for it's own sake also, they were doing so in pursuit of a specific Political and Military goal:  The development of an unthinkably devastating weapon which they believed that both Hitler and Stalin were near to having themselves.  Many of these Scientists had fled the political control of these two megalomaniacs and understood too well what it could mean for them to be the first (or only) to have the biggest stick.

Many of the Scientists (and I suspect the Engineers as well) on the Manhattan Project had a lot of concerns about the implications of what they were developing.  The contemporary judgment of Scientists as being warmongers is highly misplaced (understanding that this judgement is not universally held).   Most of those selected to work on the Manhattan project were chosen *for* their likely sympathy with the cause.  It did no-one any good to try to induct someone into the fold who was patently against the notion, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that there were plenty who might have contributed but were not asked because they were not sure to be willing.

I am not a Nuclear Apologist.  I came to LANL in 1981 as somewhat of a Pacifist (for example, I was a vegetarian of principle, unwilling to kill animals to round out my omnivorous diet) but nevertheless believing in the principle of "Mutual Assured Destruction".  Believing that once Pandora's Box was open, the most we could hope for was enough "parity" between 3 superpowers (as China was fading from that status at the time) to maintain an uneasy truce.   I was (naively?) happy that "the good guys" had the bigger stick and I applauded keeping it that way.

Once the Wall fell and the death knells of the cold war were heard, I was less sure of MAD as ever having made sense.  Soon after that, the Dalai Lama came to Santa Fe and spoke to thousands.  He was attended by no more "security" than a couple of other monks walking humbly and smiling grandly.  Within months previous, Prez Clinton had visited LANL with his usual entourage of hundreds of Secret Service, Police Escorts, etc.   similarly, the Pope was in Denver riding around in his bullet-proof case on the top of the Pope-Mobile.   The Dalai Lama has a similar number of followers as either of these other two figures and some very specific enemies, yet he was in no apparent way feeling (or being) threatened.   You could imagine that neither Bill nor John Paul would last an hour w/o all their security, yet the Dalai Lama is virtually available to anyone who might want to cause him harm.

Back to the point.   One of the audience at the public speaking asked the question about Los Alamos.

(a nuclear weapons opponent)
Q. "Are you going to Los Alamos to tell them to end their madness?"
A. "I have nothing to talk with them about, but I would be willing to talk with them if they asked"

(a nuclear weapons apologist)
Q. "But hasn't Nuclear Weapons kept the peace for 50 years?"
A.  "If you came upon two men in the street clenching eachother's collars with one hand while holding the other fist back ready to strike, would you call that peace?"

This simple exchange helped me to resolve the confusion I had about what was going on in our MAD foreign policy.   It did not make me feel any better or any worse about the nature of much of the work at LANL, it just helped me to understand that the problem is not the science or even the technology.

On the other hand, many LANL employees of all stripes are Hawks.   They are either that way because it is superficially consistent with the work they do, or it is economic, ensuring future employment, or it is a self-selecting process.   Many people dedicated to peace would be unwilling to work that closely to the belly of the beast.

In my greatest fantasies I wish that no-one had ever invented Nuclear Weapons.   Or learned to weaponize hoof-and-mouth disease or smallpox or ... .  Or developed nerve gas, or mustard gas, or napalm, or greek fire.   Or developed rockets, or guns, or gunpowder.  Or learned to make ballistic weapons such as spears or atlatls or bows or catapults or trebuchets.  Or learned to flake stone into having sharp edges.  Or learned to create and control fire.  But homo sapiens (at least the males of the species) seem to be very territorial and violent by nature and through the application of an upright stance, a gripping hand with opposable thumb, the skill and will to shape tools and weapons, and the capacity of language to develop and spread knowledge and ideology, have been hell bent on dominating eachother, every other species and the physical world they inhabit at every opportunity.

To the extent that Science (and Engineering) support these endeavors, we can say it is bad.  

Art, on the other hand, is not so much about the physical world, but more about the world of ideas and thoughts and feelings and experiences.   To agree vehemently with Ann, I would say that it is upon "the Arts" to find solutions  to the problems of how to transcend our (apparent) nature as deadly exploiters of everything we encounter.  

The practice of Science and Engineering can play some small tactical roles in this transformation perhaps.   We have shown that even the development of intrinsically *defensive* weapons unbalances power, fueling arms races.    To the extent that the Social and Political Sciences are truly grounded in the Scientific Method and sound Mathematics, Science might be able to help a little with recognizing likely or unlikely tactics.  

============================================================
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

[Russ Abbott]

It seems to me that you are mixing people and disciplines. Scientists and engineers are people. People can be noble, mean-spirited, guilt-ridden, etc. Science and engineering are disciplines. As such, they do not have the same properties as people. It's a simple distinction.  The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory. Einstein on the other hand, was a character, noble in some ways and not very nice in others. Einstein's personality has nothing to do with general relativity as a theory of the way nature is. Let's not mix categories.

-- Russ

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Guys, (Frank excluded, as he obviously has a good grasp of  the realities of this particular bit of human nature): the attempt to distance the "scientists" from the "engineers", either in general, or in particular for their respective roles on the Manhattan Project is a crutch.  *Everybody* involved with that project knew what the potential destructive power of the end product of their labors would likely be.

I grew up in Los Alamos, 1950 - 1964, and then came back to work there from 1984 - 2005, and I'm here to to tell you that the scientists at Los Alamos have always known what the capabilities of that particular class of WMD were as well as did the the engineers who routinely turned the concepts into reality.  It is as true today as it was in the days of the Manhattan Project.  Why do you think there is such a disproportionate number of churches in Los Alamos, compared to average small town America?

Answer (Duh!):  guilt.

Scientists aren't any more special, or noble, or incisive than engineers.  Or vice versa.  Please get off that pulpit. They are just people who approach problems from different perspectives. 

--Doug

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Why do you think there is such a disproportionate number of churches
> in Los Alamos, compared to average small town America?
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
> Can science and engineering be value free or outside the domain of values?
>
>
I would certainly hope so, but the evidence Doug mentions is conspicuous
and troubling.   I would hope candidates for classified work would not
only be screened for untenable debt and drug addiction, but also for
weakness for religion.   Or if emotional support is generally needed,
have secular counsellors on site, and not leave these things to
chance.   By the time the decision has been made to pursue something
behind the fence, the wheels of our democratic government have done
their work.

Marcus

============================================================
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

[Jack Leibowitz]

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: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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