Hello list,
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:23 +0000, Simon Biggs wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> Some scientists regard science as you do as the best of a set of
> relatively better or worse options. However, many are absolutist.
This is also an experience i had during my 2 month stay in a biological
research station. There was quite a throughput of researchers during
this time and so a lot of possibility to talk with scientists which we
did not collaborate with.
I was specifically surprised by a few things which constantly came up:
For example the understanding of art, basically as entertainment, to
give pleasure and show beauty, something you engage with in your
leisure. This is not a generalization about scientists but it seems to
reflect the general opinion of what art is to about 90%(is it too
optimistic ?) of our fellow humans.
On the other hand a collaboration between artist and scientist was only
imaginable to an extent that art could be a vehicle to popularize
science (as in public relations not as in knowledge transfer). That
artists could take a role which would be different and not in behalf of
science was difficult to comprehend by most.
I think this might show quite well that the ideas we are discussing
do not reach very far into the scientific community.
Pointing towards what was brought up by Armin and defended by Tom I find
it rather difficult to navigate between the ideal of science and the
many faces of science I experience and that the "old arguments" are very
much alive.
At the end we have too choose our collaboration partners as being
individuals(doing science) and not as being scientist.
I also want to restate that there is much potential in education to find
new disciplines which stem from and coexist together with art and
science. A prerequisite is to get rid of the economization of education
our educational systems are still experiencing.
Best
erich
|