I like what you have to say.  And perhaps another criteria that helps
fuse art (philosophy) and science is the fact that an inner excitement
can be conveyed by someone who isn't and doesn't pretend to be the dull
and boring scientist.

John writes:  I think this concept is part of the nature of thought.
Both a
scientific and a philosophical approach can be taken with all
subjects. I have been thinking about this, and I find it interesting
that while many archaeologists would like to think of themselves as
scientists, and all good archaeologists would like, at least, to think
that they approached their subject scientifically, other professions
would not.

Gerry here:  Isn't that the truth!  I know that good archaeologists do
approach their subject scientifically but other professions scorn
archaeology because they see themselves as approaching their subject
with "more" science.

John writes:  Painters, at openings of their shows speak
"philosophically" about
their work. I can't remember a single occasion where an artist said
something like "Although it is a beautiful colour, rose madder is just
too fugitive a pigment and fades too easily in strong light", or even:
"I selected these colours as they create an excited state in the
brain".

Gerry:  Yes!  I love it!  "Too fugitive a pigment" says so much more
than a plain declarative sentence.

John:  You hear statements more like "I feel my work reflects
mankind's struggle with..." One artist that I know, complaining about
government funding in the arts, said that they were wasting our money
on scientific research!

Gerry:  I don't like to see the polarization that takes place in the
arts and sciences.  I can understand why someone in the arts would
pooh-pooh the sciences, but government funding MUST foster BOTH
entities.

John:  Some artists have such a poor grasp of the science of their
subject
that the paint actually falls off of the ground. Da Vinci was a great
artist, but a lousy technician -- look at the sorry state of the "Last
Supper". Raphael, on the other hand, knew how to make paintings that
lasted.

Gerry:  But learning how to make paint last isn't the mark of a good
painter.  There are plenty of poor painters whose works will last for a
long time but . . .  hmmm.  Maybe you're correct.  Once the general
public becomes used to seeing a painting they then might think it's a
great one.  One the other hand, some of the "street paintings" that wash
away in the rain can be considered excellent although ephermoral works
of art.

John:  Scientific method(s) is really a set of shortcuts to knowing. We
have
yet to evolve to the point where we can know without method, or a
process. Yet after obtaining a grounding in these methods, and having
some experience, our brain develops the ability to intuit to some
degree.

Gerry:  Absolutely correct.  Once we master the method we then can
proceed with description and then a bit of prediction.

John:  Artificial intelligence struggles with these processes and
tries to develop models that approach the way we consciously think
about things, but even our conscious thought is limited. I don't like
a total reliance on the scientific method, and I like even less
fashions in methodology. These set up neural pathways that can inhibit
more global views.

Gerry:  So many of the folks deeply involved in pretending to be
"focused scientists" and in fact turn out to be myopic technicians.  And
total reliance on scientific method must cause some sort of synapse
along the neural pathways.  To inhibit a global view just might destroy
our world politically, economically, and socially.

John:  We build databases, and I very often come up with the concepts
for the
database. I have had no training whatsoever in database construction.
When I think of ways that certain data should be manipulated, my
partner builds the database. She has had the experience in database
construction, and my concepts often require a lot of "workarounds". If
I had been trained, systematically, in database construction, many of
the innovations that we have developed would have never occurred to me
because my thought processes would have been "trained" by the
educational method.

Gerry:  Does your datebase builder have a "friend".  I desperately need
someone to help me with technical problems that absolutely frustrate me
and prevent me from being able to bring my concepts into fruition.

John:  It is all rather similar to the structure of a think tank. You
need
people in a well constructed think tank that have no grounding in the
subject being discussed, otherwise you just end up following well
trodden pathways. After years of experience in method, a number of
people are able to transcend that state, and treat their subject in a
more philosophical light, but I don't think we can start out
philosophically, without resorting to the think tank model where we
can pool our resources.

Gerry:  Yes, functioning in a group is a very excellent way to proceed.
When a person functions alone, there is no feedback, no interaction, no
excitement, no joie de vivre, no anything :-(   just gloom and doom.

John:  To return to the subject of archaeology, the biggest problem in
dealing with the subject in scientific terms is that the survival of
the evidence is varied and we can't really do anything about that.

Gerry:  As well, the interpretation of the evidence varies based on
who's doing the viewing.

John:  We
have to be "time detectives" and taking an interdisciplinary approach,
use both inductive and deductive methods to come up with
probabilities.

Gerry:  I'm in total agreement.  Inductive/deductive;
philosophy/science.  Isn't this what the nature of physics is all about?

John:  A secondary problem in archaeology is, like the subject
of history, we are not really dealing with what was, rather we are
dealing with what we ask about what was.

Gerry:  Certainly is in the "eye of the beholder", isn't it.

John:  It is difficult to exempt our
modern perspectives, but we should at least try to do so.

Gerry:  No.  I think that would be unwise.  Only by utilizing our modern
perspectives are we able to evaluate what it is we're viewing.  This is
the synthesis aspect of thesis & antithesis.

Gee, John.  Thanks for the chat.  It's been great fun.
G



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%