Does science destroy (meaningful) creative thinking? - General

[QUOTE=Detlef;28784627]Everything we imagine is made up from reality.[/QUOTE] how do you know?

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783056] Personally, I feel like science deadens a person's capability to imagine (putting aside all the good things science has brought us). [/QUOTE] As a person studying Engineering at university (a subject that requires science, maths and imagination) I have to tell you that you are wrong.

[QUOTE=Detlef;28784627]Everything we imagine is made up from reality.[/QUOTE] Made up or destroyed from.

[QUOTE=Greeneyes;28785356]As a person studying Engineering at university (a subject that requires science, maths and imagination) I have to tell you that you are wrong.[/QUOTE] Well, to make an objective presentation I'm not picking sides; I'm just trying to squeeze the most out of you people (to put it that way) to obtain as much material to support both sides. So I'm just going to ask you to elaborate a little more on why you believe I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28785462]Well, to make an objective presentation I'm not picking sides; I'm just trying to squeeze the most out of you people (to put it that way) to obtain as much material to support both sides. So I'm just going to ask you to elaborate a little more on why you believe I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Well for example this year I have been designing an aircraft from the base up; stress checks, stability, aerodynamics, economics, feasibility, control systems, vibrations, thermodynamics etc therefore lots of science. But without imagination how am I going to turn all these numbers and calculations into an actual design?

[QUOTE=ChrisDom;28784443]What do you mean by "everything?" We know monsters don't exist and we can easily imagine one. The Truth: Monsters don't exist. Able to be imagined?: Yes.[/QUOTE] True, but if someone discovered that monsters are real, we wouldn't need to imagine them anymore because we'd have an actual image of them. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Greeneyes;28785573]Well for example this year I have been designing an aircraft from the base up; stress checks, stability, aerodynamics, economics, feasibility, control systems, vibrations, thermodynamics etc therefore lots of science. But without imagination how am I going to turn all these numbers and calculations into an actual design?[/QUOTE] Fair point, but to what extent is the imagination used to accomplished such feats considered creative by 'artistic standards'? Of course that's all very subjective, but somewhere a line has to be drawn. Putting all those calculations into actual form does indeed require imagination, a lot of it, but it's used for technical purposes, not artistic ones. Feel free to disagree, I'm glad to hit an engineer in this subject.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28785582] Fair point, but to what extent is the imagination used to accomplished such feats considered creative by 'artistic standards'? Of course that's all very subjective, but somewhere a line has to be drawn. Putting all those calculations into actual form does indeed require imagination, a lot of it, but it's used for technical purposes, not artistic ones. Feel free to disagree, I'm glad to hit an engineer in this subject.[/QUOTE] In that lies the point I'd hope you'd reach: Art is very subjective What one person considers art another may not. For example I'd call this a work of art due to my perspective: [img]http://www.qm-systems.com/files/f-35-lightning.jpg[/img] others will disagree.

The more you know, the more you know about how little you know. If you just stop at F=ma, then the work is practically boring. However, everything you use now is basically based on F=ma. You wouldn't even be here posting if there was no science. The very computer you are using right now is an essence of science. Is it not a revolutionary object? Would anyone think about creating a computer if we didn't even know how to make a chip? or if we didn't even know what electricity is? Hell no. And if you think simply following science can get you a computer, you are terribly wrong too. Engineering needs the same, if no more, amount of imagination as any art would.

[QUOTE=Maya2008;28786651]Would anyone think about creating a computer if we didn't even know how to make a chip? or if we didn't even know what electricity is? Hell no. And if you think simply following science can get you a computer, you are terribly wrong too. Engineering needs the same, if no more, amount of imagination as any art would.[/QUOTE] In that case I suppose science outdates the classic arts like drawing, painting, sculpturing ... It's definitely another way to look at it.

In my perspective, science is a guideline, art is a method, and engineering is a process to use art to express science. Let's use the computer again. You have a tons of algorithms, physics from scientists. However, you need to silicon wafers, lithography, sculpture, and etc. and these methods are literally art skills in practical usage. Another example would be architectural engineering. Combine the art of architecture and science. All, my point is that it's not either science or art, or either science or religion. They all can exist together as long as you can tolerate both. The world is not binary. On one end, you get abstract paintings, on the other end you get scientific theories. but it is the middle ground that allows humanity to evolve and develop.

[QUOTE=Maya2008;28786880]In my perspective, science is a guideline, art is a method, and engineering is a process to use art to express science. Let's use the computer again. You have a tons of algorithms, physics from scientists. However, you need to silicon wafers, lithography, sculpture, and etc. and these methods are literally art skills in practical usage. Another example would be architectural engineering. Combine the art of architecture and science. All, my point is that it's not either science or art, or either science or religion. They all can exist together as long as you can tolerate both. The world is not binary. On one end, you get abstract paintings, on the other end you get scientific theories. but it is the middle ground that allows humanity to evolve and develop.[/QUOTE] Noted. Thanks for sharing!

science is very artistic [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] i look at a computer part and i see a city

[QUOTE=eXiv2;28783207]I don't see how the sun still is a majestic globe but instead we know how it can exist and why. I'd rather know what happens and create more realistic artwork than not knowing what I draw/paint/make. As you said science made new forms of art possible, but it also made new artworks as a whole. Before we knew how the universe existed we weren't able to draw/paint it, now we can. And you can see a lot of beautiful pieces of the universe. Arguably, before we knew how the sun worked it was a hot, boring globe. Just sitting there. Ofcourse, this is only the sun and the universe we're talking about. Science did a lot more than that. This ofcourse is my opinion.[/QUOTE] Specifically this one, and to all: Believe it or not, science encourages creativity. Though I don't have some source, I think we can all relate to this enough to agree that it might be true: Creativity is dependent upon and directly proportional to the amount of curiosity a person has. Now, let's take a look at your average joe. What does he know about trees? Average Joe: They're there. They're made of bark and stuff, they grow out of the ground because of photosynthesis or something. How much does he wonder about trees? Not much. They aren't interesting to him. He thinks he knows all there is to know about trees and percieves them as hollow, depth-lacking objects that he runs into every once in a while. Occasionally, he'll see one with red leaves and say "That's neat." and continue on with a day. How much does a child know about trees? They're made of bark and stuff, they grow out of the ground because of photosynthesis or something. The child, like the average joe, knows pretty much the same thing about the tree. But the difference is the child does not feel that it knows everything there is to know about trees. In fact, the Child realizes they know nothing about the tree, in reality. How much does a scientist know about trees? A lot. The photosynthesis is (Blah blah blah blah) and originates from (Blahdey blahdey blah). So where does the (Non-close minded, unlike too many American scientists) scientist feel about the tree? Is the scientist indifferent like the average joe, or wonderous and creative about the child? Curious, wonderous and creative. Not just does the scientist realize it's a tree, the scientist has gone through every book on trees. Sure, the scientist's knowledge doesn't make him/her imagine the tree the same way a child does, but the scientist knows that the knowledge about trees is imperfect. In fact, the scientist realizes more than even the child that the tree has infinitely more susbtance than anyone else could ever imagination. Do you think that Einstein proved all that he proved and taught us all that he taught while robotically reading a book and being indifferent and cocky? No. Einstein, in fact, believed in what Socrates said: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing" To begin to work on understanding the universe, the big scientists you hear about now and the past do not look on a linear-subjective path. Instead, they must be very creative. They will create so many things and ideas about the universe. Sure, one or two will end up prevailing over the others, but the same thing happens with Leonardo Davinci, where his most famous paintings were obviously not the only paintings he made. Creativity is proportional to curiosity. Curiosity is proportional to a lack of indifference. A lack of indifference is proportional to one's assumption of one's own understanding. One's own assumption of one's own understanding is inversely proportional to the amount one has learned. You think we've pretty much learned everything there is to learn in science, almost? If yes, you can't be more wrong. That's what the Greeks told Aristotle when he pushed the very creative and artistic idea that the Earth is not flat.

Going back to the OP's point, I'd say that in the case of sun-related artwork, that's specifically due to sun worship. I.e. that artwork was due to religion - and science (while not destroying art) certainly has a tendency to destroy religions. The mystery of religion has inspired countless artists throughout history, and science dispells mystery. I suppose you could argue that that's a loss, but there's always more mystery out there for art to explore.

If you call Religion "meaningful" and creative thinking, then I hope so. But really, it only broadens our imagination. Take Half-Life 2 as an example. Nothing as deep as that or as actually scary would come about without science. As Dr. Breen said, things our "limited vocabulary" can't describe.

[QUOTE=Larikang;28794353]Going back to the OP's specific point, I'd say that in the specific case of sun-related artwork, that's specifically due to sun worship. I.e. that artwork was due to religion - and science (while not destroying art) certainly has a tendency to destroy religions. The mystery of religion has inspired countless artists throughout history, and science dispells mystery. I suppose you could argue that that's a loss, but there's always more mystery out there for art to explore.[/QUOTE] True, I didn't take into account that before the Industrial Revolution, many nations were still theocracies and artists heavily influenced by religion. But I don't want this to turn this into another religion vs. science discussion. Yet what you said about science dispelling mystery was, indeed, the idea I formed in my mind; then again, there is indeed more mystery to unveil and by the time science has explained new mysteries, even more unknown things will pop up.

[img]http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6516626/Make-a-thread-in-which-you-gently-present-your-opinion-Dumbs.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Advice-Facepunch-v3[/img]

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;28789092]science is very artistic [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] i look at a computer part and i see a city[/QUOTE] That's because people who makes these parts are called architects/designers. Just because it's electronics doesn't mean it can't be artsy.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;28789092]science is very artistic [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] i look at a computer part and i see a city[/QUOTE] That's because you don't know what these things do, I mean you know the purpose and the chips' name but if you knew exactly how it worked its beauty would be lost, OP is in some areas correct. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] Really disappointed in you FP

[QUOTE=gregvizz;28797391]That's because you don't know what these things do, I mean you know the purpose and the chips' name but if you knew exactly how it worked its beauty would be lost, OP is in some areas correct. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] Really disappointed in you FP[/QUOTE] i know how it works, i took an enginneering class like two years ago but it doesn't cease to look like a city to me, i like it imagine it's a little city and all those parts are little buildings

All 'art' and no 'science' = babbling retard that views the world as a blur of color. All 'science' and no 'art' = cold and emotionless, boring nerd. Example; I can have the most creative ideas in the world, but if I don't know how to work a camera I'll get dark and blurry pictures. If I know everything about the camera but don't have any ideas, my pictures will be boring and unimaginative. As with most things in life, [i]you need to find a balance[/i].

[QUOTE=gregvizz;28797391]That's because you don't know what these things do, I mean you know the purpose and the chips' name but if you knew exactly how it worked its beauty would be lost, OP is in some areas correct. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] Really disappointed in you FP[/QUOTE] I disagree. If you knew exactly how it worked, you would recognize how much we don't understand about how the deeper things work, making the chip that much more beautiful. Understanding isn't what kills curiosity (In fact, as I said above, it encourages it). Indifference is. No Understanding: Beautiful. I have no idea how it works. Imagine the possibilities. Some Understanding: The electric impulses go through those lines. But what's on the inside? Imagine the possibilities. Advanced Scientific understanding: The electric impulses go through the lines and are brought through a series of operations by intelligently designed (No reference intended) gates. But why does the electricity behave like that? Why do the atomic-level nuclear reactions cause such strange activity in electrons? Imagine the possibilities. Indifference (Regardless of amount known about the chip): Yeah. It's a chip. I don't care. I'm going to go eat chips, watch reality television and yell at my dog for not being perfect.

[QUOTE=Leopardson;28799722]I disagree. If you knew exactly how it worked, you would recognize how much we don't understand about how the deeper things work, making the chip that much more beautiful. Understanding isn't what kills curiosity (In fact, as I said above, it encourages it). Indifference is. No Understanding: Beautiful. I have no idea how it works. Imagine the possibilities. Some Understanding: The electric impulses go through those lines. But what's on the inside? Imagine the possibilities. Advanced Scientific understanding: The electric impulses go through the lines and are brought through a series of operations by intelligently designed (No reference intended) gates. But why does the electricity behave like that? Why do the atomic-level nuclear reactions cause such strange activity in electrons? Imagine the possibilities. Indifference (Regardless of amount known about the chip): Yeah. It's a chip. I don't care. I'm going to go eat chips, watch reality television and yell at my dog for not being perfect.[/QUOTE] Best response eva. But (oh yes), look [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/trees.jpg[/img] Red circles ideas-creativity More black, more "knowledge", the more you think about something a loop is created, the more you know about something a "tree" is created. Now the more you imagine about a fact the more you'll think you know about it and the more you think you can "imagine" about it. But in reality you can't. I mean of course you have seen this; teacher gives an essay on something really generic "Yay lots of stuff to say!" B- teacher gives an essay on something really specific "Aw dayum your niggotry" A- This is how it goes, you do not know about something; think in a loop (things you know combined with the "unimaginable" = creativity) Loop is reinforced each time = more creative. Of course this is relevant, let's say a guy was born in a completely empty room as a test subject, and food and water were provided daily. He doesn't know shit he hasn't seen shit. He will not be creative. Of course you have the unimaginable but you don't have the knowledge to even help you make a theory about it. So it's all relevant, you need knowledge to be creative about something but a good example can blind you into thinking the other way round. (tree) lol

[QUOTE=Leopardson;28799722]I disagree. If you knew exactly how it worked, you would recognize how much we don't understand about how the deeper things work, making the chip that much more beautiful. Understanding isn't what kills curiosity (In fact, as I said above, it encourages it). Indifference is. No Understanding: Beautiful. I have no idea how it works. Imagine the possibilities. Some Understanding: The electric impulses go through those lines. But what's on the inside? Imagine the possibilities. Advanced Scientific understanding: The electric impulses go through the lines and are brought through a series of operations by intelligently designed (No reference intended) gates. But why does the electricity behave like that? Why do the atomic-level nuclear reactions cause such strange activity in electrons? Imagine the possibilities. Indifference (Regardless of amount known about the chip): Yeah. It's a chip. I don't care. I'm going to go eat chips, watch reality television and yell at my dog for not being perfect.[/QUOTE] But the difference is that with advanced scientific knowledge, you're still 'stuck' with the explanation for the chip, no way around: [i]that's[/i] how it works and no other way. (Not accounting the fact that it opens doors to other things related to how it works.) Whereas the people with no understanding could come up with much more creative way of explaining it. A lot of people really don't want to be overloaded by all the aspects that come into something as complex as a chip: they simply want something to be, allowing them to give personal meaning to it.

[QUOTE=gregvizz;28800420]Best response eva. But (oh yes), look [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/trees.jpg[/img_thumb] Red circles ideas-creativity More black, more "knowledge", the more you think about something a loop is created, the more you know about something a "tree" is created. Now the more you imagine about a fact the more you'll think you know about it and the more you think you can "imagine" about it. But in reality you can't. I mean of course you have seen this; teacher gives an essay on something really generic "Yay lots of stuff to say!" B- teacher gives an essay on something really specific "Aw dayum your niggotry" A- This is how it goes, you do not know about something; think in a loop (things you know combined with the "unimaginable" = creativity) Loop is reinforced each time = more creative. Of course this is relevant, let's say a guy was born in a completely empty room as a test subject, and food and water were provided daily. He doesn't know shit he hasn't seen shit. He will not be creative. Of course you have the unimaginable but you don't have the knowledge to even help you make a theory about it. So it's all relevant, you need knowledge to be creative about something but a good example can blind you into thinking the other way round. (tree) lol[/QUOTE] I agree that you need some knowledge to be creative. However, I think a guy in an empty room would begin to develop theories as time goes on. After all, humans didn't start out knowing that F=M*(Delta)P and E = MC^2. After a while, he's going to gain basic knowledge. Floor is hard. Can't go up easily. Stomach hurts unless I put the stuff that comes out of the wall into my mouth. I agree with the top part of your diagram, but not the bottom part. Being a prospective physicist and knowing many, it actually goes more like this for the more open-minded scientists that actually produce stuff. (There are scientists who are cold, emotionless and without creativity. However, that is a product of close-mindedness, not science. I'd like you to show me one that does anything other than sit there turning down everything that says "Extraterrestrial" or "Hypothesis".): [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/nywpkk.jpg[/img] Sorry about the image. The first lines, horizontally are as follows: Miniscule (Low-knowledge) Scientific (High-knowledge) Indifferent (Not giving a damn) [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=bambouchacka;28800732]But the difference is that with advanced scientific knowledge, you're still 'stuck' with the explanation for the chip, no way around: [i]that's[/i] how it works and no other way. (Not accounting the fact that it opens doors to other things related to how it works.) Whereas the people with no understanding could come up with much more creative way of explaining it. A lot of people really don't want to be overloaded by all the aspects that come into something as complex as a chip: they simply want something to be, allowing them to give personal meaning to it.[/QUOTE] Sure. That's the big difference between an artist and a scientist. A scientist tends to seek to improve upon a collective impression or observation of something. They are ready to drop their own creativity if somebody else has a better answer, and are, ideally, constantly willing to accept the idea that they are wrong (The ones who don't aren't good scientists). Ideally, they are not trying to win anything. To me, that is heroic. An artist tends to seek to give their impression or observation of something, in many cases without regards to something scientific or more accurate, without even attempting claim that anyone else is wrong. They also never claim they are right. Ideally, they are not trying to win anything. To me, that is heroic. An ignorant/indifferent or otherwise close-minded person does not care what the reality is. However, despite their lack of knowledge, they are not willing to accept the possibility they are wrong or see deeper into an object that their minds feel they already understand perfectly. When a scientist mentions photosynthesis or an artist mentions inner beauty, the indifferent person merely says "That's just another way of saying what I already know.". The indifferent person is usually arrogant, ignorant and trying to win the game of money-making and being the best. To me, that is disgusting.

Wasn't The Persistence of Memory inspired by science?

[QUOTE=Rubs10;28801080]Wasn't The Persistence of Memory inspired by science?[/QUOTE] I sure wouldn't rule out the possibility. Generally, I wouldn't say science does not bring new phenomena to work about; it does, but we're more limited in our own freedom to form our own idea of it, because scientist already declare how it works. (if that made sense) A good example of this would be the science-fiction genre it brought us. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Leopardson;28800777]Sure. That's the big difference between an artist and a scientist. A scientist tends to seek to improve upon a collective impression or observation of something. They are ready to drop their own creativity if somebody else has a better answer, and are, ideally, constantly willing to accept the idea that they are wrong (The ones who don't aren't good scientists). Ideally, they are not trying to win anything. To me, that is heroic. An artist tends to seek to give their impression or observation of something, in many cases without regards to something scientific or more accurate, without even attempting claim that anyone else is wrong. They also never claim they are right. Ideally, they are not trying to win anything. To me, that is heroic. An ignorant/indifferent or otherwise close-minded person does not care what the reality is. However, despite their lack of knowledge, they are not willing to accept the possibility they are wrong or see deeper into an object that their minds feel they already understand perfectly. When a scientist mentions photosynthesis or an artist mentions inner beauty, the indifferent person merely says "That's just another way of saying what I already know.". The indifferent person is usually arrogant, ignorant and trying to win the game of money-making and being the best. To me, that is disgusting.[/QUOTE] Neglecting the 'indifferent person' here; do you mean that scientist are becoming artists in their own way?

Then why are Enlightenment artists, many of which who were also scientists considered to be some of the greatest artists in history? Science and art go hand in hand. Things like perspective took a good deal of thought to figure out.

Science doesn't destroy creativity. You can take something scientific and create it in a new perspective. Saying that the sun is a circle that moves across the sky wasn't creative, it was just ignorant. Of course, we look back on the myths and legends that evolved from that and think that it's some pretty cool art, but their stories weren't artistic or creative, it's just what they believed. Maybe it's like using a random sentence generator and drawing what it spews out. The drawing may be a creative interpretation, but the sentence wasn't really creative. Perhaps it's stupid for me to say this, but I don't think people's creativity is being stemmed from science. We're still creating from what we perceive as fact just like others were hundreds of years ago.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;28801393]Then why are Enlightenment artists, many of which who were also scientists considered to be some of the greatest artists in history? Science and art go hand in hand. Things like perspective took a good deal of thought to figure out.[/QUOTE] I never implied that scientists couldn't be good artists, but I haven't seen many awe-inspiring paintings in which chips or something alike were featured. (although given time, I'm sure someone will make those)