>
> Folks
it would be good to have some more scientists on this list
speak up !!
as a scientist ( physics, astronomy) i would like to inject that
the scientific method itself evolves in terms of what kinds of
"explanations" are considered testable/robust/falsifiable
for instance in some sciences, particularly where non linear
complex phenomena predominate, computer simulations have taken on the
status of hypotheses- ie you build a simulation of climate change=
you compare the simulation with historical data= when there is a
good fit, you propose it as an explanation with predictive capacities
( and then convince governments to act)
this is quite different from a mathematical equation that is proposed
as a 'compact' description of the world with predictive
robustness/testability
( E=MC2)=most people have this kind of scientific explanation in mind
when they talk of science
I guess the part of scientism that i would personally subscribe to is that
there is a world that exists independent of human cognitive apparatus=
the problem is how that cognitive apparatus develops
testable/robust/falsifiable
descriptions that have predictive abilities and this is a very messy process
( non scientific) where art science interfaces have a historical track
record
the ideas that we have about the world are very tied to our brain
structures,
cognitive capacities, the language structures (such as ontologies) that we
project on the world= so the historical development of scientific
explanations
is one that reflects our cultural embedness
i also think the art vs science debate is sterile at this point- as someone
pointed out - when dealing with an urgent problem like climate change and
how to change our societies so that we will survive, its all hands on deck,
art and science together
an interesting question for the curators on this list is what is really the
best way to present art-science and science-art to interested publics ?
the dublin gallery is one new type of model of an art gallery within a
science institution ( UCLA also has a gallery within the nano science
institute
ZKM for a while has a scientific research team within a cultural insitution)
should we be showing art-science and science-art within the new media ghetto
that is trying to get accredited by the commercial/museum/academic world or
do
we need new ideas of how art-science and science=art projects should be
presented to new publics, in what contexts, how
i feel like the token scientist on this list !! it would be great to have
other
scientists post !!
roger malina
|