TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is science the basis of art, society and faith?

A greater question from previous discussions.

Share:
  • Mar 19 2014: Science is a methodology. It has at its core, a desire to be objective. To remove human preference, desire, experience from the process.

    The others are the opposite. Art is all about the human experience. Society is about the human condition. Faith is believing stuff just because you want it to be true.


    Rather than science as being the basis for the others, I would say they are completely separate.
    • Mar 20 2014: That's not been my experience as a working scientist--not as you describe it. Where did you do your research? Most of my work has been in Alzheimer's disease. You can look me up in PubMed.
      • Mar 20 2014: What exactly do I have wrong? The science part, where we use double-blind studies in an attempt to remove human subjectivity from the results?

        Or the part where art is all about the human experience.
        • Mar 20 2014: And where have you done your work as an actual scientist? Not all science is done as "double-blind studies"--WERE YOU NOT AWARE OF THAT? Indeed, a GREAT DEAL of science is not done as "double-blind studies". WERE YOU NOT AWARE OF THAT? Where have you done your work? What index can I look you up in to peruse your publications?
      • Mar 20 2014: As stated before, I am not a scientist. That does not mean I can be bullied by appeal to unqualified authority.

        What part of science embraces subjectivity into its process? Sure, there are other forms of objective data collection, but it is my understanding, that they all seek to remove human subjectivity from the process.

        This will take us back to previous topic where I claimed "and then magic" is nota acceptable in a scientific model. You failed to give an example of a scientific model in which "and then magic" was considered acceptable.

        Perhaps you are able to isolate your work as a scientist from your religious beliefs, and fins offense at the idea that they are incompatible. They are not incompatible within the same mind, but faith or subjective human experience has no place in the scientific process. Goal setting, sure. But the discovery of the knowledge that drives toward that goal, no.
        • Mar 20 2014: The magical "cut off" at 95% confidence is entirely subjective, but it is accepted as Holy Writ by a large proportion of scientists. There is nothing objectively superior between a 95% significant and a 95.000000001% significant result, but the one is accepted and the other is rejected by a large number of workers in the field. It's arbitrary, subjective, and faith-based. It's how a lot of science is done. It's the real world, not some play-pretend "pure" version of science.
        • Mar 21 2014: Darrel,

          I'm also a scientist, and, as you said, we indeed try and remove subjectivity from the process.

          What Bryan describes (95% confidence, etc) is not faith. It's more of a "let's not be too hasty to accept just about any results. Since we might be wrong, let's put a high threshold." But we scientists do understand that, even then, there's always the probability to being wrong, which is the side Bryan fails to understand (or so it seems). It also seems like Bryan learned his "philosophy of science" from some creationist web site, or did not go beyond middle-school materials.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2014: Human creativity is the basis of science and faith.
    • Mar 23 2014: It is boring at the top of the food chain. Human creativity is a symptom of boredom.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: Depending on perspective, you could say that any one of those things bore all the others.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: nope. but it's in the peer group.
  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: Science seeks answers
    Art provokes an emotional response and makes you think
    Society is a mathematical equation, figuring out what works
    Faith is the belief that these are all linked through some higher form of intelligence
    Science is looking for that link and seeking to answer the questions we have about the higher form of intelligence
  • Mar 23 2014: Curiousity and perspective are the basis from which the rest evolve.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2014: if you define science as a series of observations, that come together to make a conclusion, then most things in life can be considered science.
  • Mar 21 2014: When you see a beautiful woman then do you say this scientifically :

    I saw a large flesh having skeleton of calcium phosphate having two optical devices with one breathing instrument and and two microphones with one input lid to feed the energy raw materials.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2014: .
    Science let us know how the 3 work.
  • Mar 20 2014: No.
    Art is not the basis of science, society, and faith.
    Society is not the basis of art, science, and faith.
    Faith is not the basis of art, science, and society.

    All of them operate in rough parallel, intersecting and interacting.
  • Mar 20 2014: No.

    It is one basis for reasoning and thought structure that can interconnect the three subjects and provide evidence for arguments made to support positions involving theses subjects relative to observations and hypotheses about natural objects, occurrences and phenomena.
  • Mar 19 2014: Nope. How could it be? Science as the basis for faith? What kind of nonsense is that? Science is the antithesis of faith. Science as the basis for art? Well, some art is inspired by science, but overall it can't be. Art is not about knowing, but about expression and "whatever." Art is also much older than science proper. Science as a basis for society? How could it? We have been forming societies for eons before we developed science proper too.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2014: I appreciate that you, as a scientist, replied to this question. I think one reason for the widespread popular disdain for science/scientists is that many people are under the mistaken impression that scientists in general believe that science is the root of everything.
      • Mar 20 2014: That profile belongs to a scientist? Really? I deny that this "Entropy Driven" is a scientist at all. My publications as a professional scientist can be looked up on PubMed. Where is this "Entropy Driven" published? I call out this "Entropy Driven" as nothing but a groupie with no credentials nor professional record.
        Science is not the antithesis of faith. Indeed, science requires a great deal of faith, as David Hume pointed out centuries ago in his critique of inferential reasoning.
        • Mar 20 2014: Did you fail to read any further? I mean beyond Hume? Did you try and check Hume's assumptions? Did you fail to notice the difference between a philosophical "problem," the way Hume described it, and faith?

          Of what value are your publications then Bryan? If they are mere faith, then your results might as well be fantasies in your head. Go ahead and withdraw them. It's the honest thing to do given your basic philosophy.

          I did not fail to see the problem with Hume. But even if neither of us did notice them, there's a huge difference between faith as in religious faith, and what you pretend to be Hume's conclusion.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2014: You are contradicting yourself.
          First you say that is really important for people to be actual scientists when talking about science. Then you go on to reference David Hume who was not even a scientist.
          I see you are a fan of calling people groupies when they don't agree with your obvious beliefs. Theism is based purely on religious texts that are contradictory and constantly dis proven. And should, like any dis proven theory, be discarded.
          Also are you saying that as a "Professional Scientist" you are able to see things that other people can't? Are you saying that if you get paid to be a scientist (which should lead to scientific credentials) you suddenly know more about reality then everyone else? And that you are somehow privy to information that is somehow different then the information everyone else gets?

          In the end I would think that faith and passion are not the same thing.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2014: *Isn’t science based on our faith in our ability to find, invent, and understand something better?
      And many scientists have found faith in mankind and/or god though science.

      *Art is in the eye of the beholder, I know people that can see or create a great piece of coding and math formal and see it as art. Was not Leonardo da Vinci a balance blending both an artist and scientist?

      *And how much of science is done for the betterment of society, and has society aloud science to flourish?

      Science like all things in life is best done in a holistic approach.
      • Mar 21 2014: Hi Don,

        Well, we are getting in trouble here. Faith can be defined different ways, and then we start with equivocations. I trust our ability to find, invent, and understand something better. But it's not faith as the religious definition of faith. It's experience, it's understanding, it's reason.

        Sure. I never said that science could not inspire art. Science can be art in itself! What I deny is that science is the very basis for art. Art can also inspire science. Scientists do try and study art and how we approach art. It's psychological implications, etc. But that does not mean that science is the basis of art either.

        Sure, science can be used for the betterment of society, and society is necessary for science to be done. But science is not the basis of society.

        Science is beautiful, powerful, inspiring, many things. But it has not been the basis for either of those other things.

        Thanks for the comment.
    • Mar 21 2014: What journals are you published in? I can be looked up on Medline? What's your index? You are not a scientist. You are a poseur.
      • Mar 21 2014: Curiously a poseur who understands science and philosophy much better than you.

        What makes you respectable in a forum is not the degrees you can show, but the insight of your comments. All I see in you is an angry, and perhaps frustrated, person presuming titles, as if the titles magically mitigated his poor thinking.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: It's possible to say that scientific principals allow for the observation of those different practices, but observing scientific principals isn't necessary to practice the others. In other words, I agree, it depends on perspective.
  • thumb
    Apr 18 2014: IMHO, the basis of Art is self-expression, the basis of society selfishness or greed, and the basis of Faith is curiosity.
    Why did I say the basis of society selfishness or greed? Well, that is reality for me. Society is ruled by a government or any group of people which consist of a very few tribes. Try looking for a decent government and you will only find a few small nations in Europe---just a fraction of the total of worldwide governments.
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2014: Eugene,
    To me science resides "inside" the society that contains it, I know not of a society based on science. Art is a boundless expression of man even beyond the parameters of science, Faith?-diametrically opposed to science on both Tought & method.
    Yet maybe science , art & faith are all different expressions of humanity seeking to make sense of the cosmos.

    Could Van Gogh told with with precision how many reds and its combinations he would use beforehand? If Pasteur were to come back from the grave and tasked to attempt to cure cancer could he be able to tell you all the steps that he would undertake? In both cases is a big voyage to the unknown. Both may be just doing their kind of "research".

    "science is continually correcting what it has said. Fertile corrections... science is a ladder... poetry is a winged flight... An artistic masterpiece exists for all time... Dante does not efface Homer. -V Hugo
    • thumb
      Apr 18 2014: I didn't find any convo you host so I just followed you here Carlos. Sorry but my reply (above) is not related to yours so I separated it.
  • thumb
    Apr 5 2014: Ultimately both art and science, are forms of articulating thoughts or behaviours- a means of exploring the world around us. As life, both are empirical studies. To say one is the basis of the other is equally to suggest thought precedes imagination and culture prefaces art. Artifice appears out of experience like observation may derive from abstraction. Both hang together and ultimately have the same ambition, to make us see things we had not seen before.
  • Mar 30 2014: If science is the discipline for combining materials for an alchemist outcome you could say science is the et al for every human action. You might find the indie film, in limited release Tim's Vermeer interesting. It follows the pursuit of a thinker to discover how Vermeer painted such lifelike paintings. http://sonyclassics.com/timsvermeer/. It answers your question
  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: Art is about expression of emotions and feelings based on human experience. Science tries to understand the physical world and to explain by controlled experinments; faith has to do with beliefs because you've got to believe in something (even if its Mickey Mouse) ; Society is all about human community and what is acceptable or not on earth.

    I think society is the basis of science, art and faith; because if any of this 3 is not about the dignity and welfare of the total man (body, soul and spirit), then they are useless.
  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: Art is about expression of emotions and feelings based on human experience. Science tries to understand the physical world and to explain by controlled experinments; faith has to do with beliefs because you've got to believe in something (even if its Mickey Mouse) ; Society is all about human community and what is acceptable or not on earth.

    I think society is the basis of science, art and faith; because if any of this 3 is not about the dignity and welfare of the total man (body, soul and spirit), then they are useless.
  • thumb
    Mar 25 2014: The bases of science, art, society and faith are ultimately all based on subjective experience.
  • Mar 24 2014: Society is how we organise to thrive so that we can pursue things like Art and Science. Faith is what we pursue when Society isn't thriving.
  • Mar 23 2014: How about this idea.

    Try to listen and observe everyone as a human being. Look at your comments and start doing research on this area of field. You will learn that it's actually A LOT easier than you think. Information is available everywhere on the internet and all sorts of things of education is on there. Just be smarter than the other person. You will find that you will learn more in the process of discovering than finding an instant meaning.

    Here's some help from a crazy guy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNgQIKkjB2c&list=UU_CFIGZqxXxRuPYJem5LSdQ
  • Mar 22 2014: It is boring at the top of the food chain. All 4 - Society, Art, Science and Faith - are pastimes. None, not even Society, have anything to do with SURVIVAL - filling our bellies and getting warm by the fire. Society is how we organise to THRIVE so that we can pursue things like Art and Science, both of which are symptoms of boredom. Faith is a symptom of boredom, too, and I'm thinking that it's what we pursue when Society isn't thriving.
    • Mar 23 2014: Rodrigo
      I'm beginning to suspect this is a case of projection. You seem to be raising boredom to the status of a science, an art and a faith.
      • Mar 23 2014: "It is boring at the top of the food chain. All 4 - Society, Art, Science and Faith - are pastimes. None, not even Society, have anything to do with SURVIVAL - filling our bellies and getting warm by the fire. Society is how we organise to THRIVE so that we can pursue things like Art and Science, both of which are [pastimes]. Faith is a [pastime], too, and I'm thinking that it's what we pursue when Society isn't thriving."
      • Mar 23 2014: "... Society is how we organise to THRIVE so that we can pursue things like Art and Science... Faith is... what we pursue when Society isn't thriving."
        • Mar 26 2014: The cooperation we refer to as society is necessary to survive. Science optimizes the efforts of that cooperation. Art makes it fun. Faith is the hope that entropy is a good thing.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2014: Some art may be based on science, others not.
    As society preceded science there is no way science could provide a basis for society.
    Personally speaking, science provided the route to my Christian faith.

    So, to summarise, some, none, & some.

    :-)
  • Mar 21 2014: In all my years of experience I would safely assume that Science is the true religion and faith that leads to god.
    but that excludes experimentation, mass abuse, mass modification and such practices for they cannot be made in the name of "science"
  • Mar 20 2014: Certainly not. Science as it exists today came into existence somewhere in the 17th century with the works of Descartse, Galileo and Newton. This was further developed over the coming centuries. Once the experimental method was its centrepiece it meant that experimental evidence was required to confirm any kind of idea or theory. Now, this approach was new at the time compared with say art or faith based religious belief. Both religion and art have an ancient history with various Gods being worhsipped for thousands of years. In addition, it is known from various archeological finds that arthas existed for a very long time, maybe as far back as 50 000 years or more. Notably, art has been used a great deal in the furthering or expression of religious ideas as well. So, to say that science is the basis of faith or art cannot be true historically speaking. However, you may wish to rephrase the question so it asks something in a different way.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: Would you share the case from previous discussions for this proposition? Are you ask whether art, the form societies take, and faith are typically or always based on a rigorous application of scientific method?
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: Is science based of an external locus of identity, AI: I base the value of my theories on how others view my theories?