|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Niiice
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanks I also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer. Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, while ID Properly Pursued is more concerned with why it works out that way. And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality. Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, and thus that we can approximate reality by testing concepts against the objective evidence, and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real.
I don't recall Taoist readings that teach all is illusion. If you say its there, I believe you. I may even have read it and forgot. I agree illusion would be a tough nut to crack with you guys More Buddhist than Taoist per se.
Message 404: My particular belief system is that the universe(s) and all wihin are parts of a single entity which for lack of a better word is called the Tao. Perhaps pantheism would be a better fit than deism.
NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere? A number of founding fathers were Deists. The "sig" is my signature block at the bottom of my post (you can make your own by editing your CP - see menu bar at top of page).
I am sensitive about talking design to a designer without being perceived as talking out of school. I will try to be careful. As to the human eye, I probably don't know all the design flaws you do, I haven't really done much reading on it. My position is that something can be sophisticated without being ideal.... even being way less than ideal. In my original post, i probably should not have used the word sophisticated. Seeing sophistication in all of nature is true for me, but use of the word opens up the need to defend it to other people who have different standards of sophistication. As a designer we frequently borrow elements from other designs and combine them into new designs. This would violate the nested hierarchy that Taq mentioned in Message 375, and this would show up in genetic evidence. For example:
No organism has yet been found to have a single borrowed feature. This argues against organisms being designed objects themselves, rather that inhabitants of a universe designed for the development of life via designed 'rules' of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in the nested hierarchy that is observed across the biological spectrum of life as we know it. I think of god/s more as artists than engineers ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : endby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am aware some of the founding fathers were Deists. Way back when I read it I recall saying to myself, yep that's what I am too. I even have a vague recollection one of the founding fathers wrote on it... Jefferson maybe? Jefferson is considered a Deist by many, but the one you are thinking of is the "other" Thomas ... Paine.
I have not pursued finding a corpus of writing that defines what a deist is and fleshes out the entirety of the thinking. Do you have a recommendation on where to start? There isn't one asfaik, and it kind of goes against to core concepts of no dogma and no revealed 'truth' and that understanding comes from understanding nature.
RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy. Take your time and don't worry about specifics. One of the mistakes of newbies here is thinking they have to hurry up and answer everyone asap ... that'll kill ya. I often like to read a post and then think about it before compiling a reply (in a text document that I can save and complete in stages). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD, Sorry your prior post got jammed up. That is what happened when I put quotes around it. You copied from "Normal" mode -- at the top right corner of the "Message you're replying to:" window there are two buttons, one for "Normal" and one for "Peek Mode:" -- the "Peek Mode" reveals the dbcodes that were used in the post, and when you copy that it (normally) looks the same as the original post (there are some cases where it doesn't, which I have yet to figure out a work-around, but they are rare). You can also use the "Peek" button at the bottom right of any post to see how it is formated. This is a good way to learn additional formating codes. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence. In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurred Or to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary. Thus science can investigate how things work but not why they work the way they do instead of some other way.
Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot. Nor can there be any way to determine design from non-design, ie - that an organism was designed to be as we see it today (a concept that I have some issues with, such as why were there so many wasted paths - extinctions - before getting to the design today) or that the universe was designed to produce an organism as we see today (which I don't have issues with), no matter how sophisticated you consider the organism to be. You can't have it both ways. Note that computer programs have been written and run using evolution algorithms to develop objects to perform certain functions, and it appears to be a very robust method of achieving the end goal - in spite of the dead-ends abandoned along the way.
If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one. Design applies to art as well as to engineering, architecture, and vengeful people (), so I don't have much quibble with just the aspects of design per se, but I do with the concept that any specific organism was intended. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
taiji2 writes: I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanksI also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer. RAZD writes: Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying ID uses science to understand how ID works? You can take apart a car and study how the parts are shaped, how they interact, and how the whole produces an artifact that can move down the highway. You cannot study why the body design was shaped the way it was, nor why the internal parts have the specific arrangements they have, when there are numerous other patterns that produce a similar result.
perhaps, perhaps not. I will get over to that thread eventually. Gets into whether the why is relegated to intellectual musings or whether the why has something to do with the how. One of the issues (in Is ID properly pursued?) is whether you are seeing design or the appearance of design, as in the patterns seen through a kaleidoscope. It is only by understanding how the kaleidoscope functions that we see that the appearance of design is an artifact of the construction of the kaleidoscope.
RAZD writes: And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality. This is where I have trouble with the smugness of the science community. Science limits science to that which they can observe, measure, test, etc. ( I will say DoScience hereinafter). They then make the A Priori statement that anything that can be contradicted within that framework is at odds with reality. This last sentence seems a little jumbled ... care to clarify?
I don't know how to post a visual, but don't think I need it. Again, you can use peek mode (top right in reply) or the peek button (bottom right of any post) to see how formatting is done. You need a picture posted on the web to link to. They should be open source or your own or explicitly cited with author and location where possible (see forum rules, rule 7). From Perceptions of Reality, take 3 (a closed thread from 2006, suffering from old coding that is now broken, which I will correct in the following quote):
quote: Curiously I don't think that is much different from your ring scenario ...
Draw a large circle. The large circle is the population for:.....don't know the best way to describe it .........lets just call it the the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS. Within the circle of that large family, I will call it TotalReality for convenience in this conversation, draw a smaller circle. Within this smaller circle, place all the things that man CAN observe, measure, test and validate, DoScience on, . Within that smaller circle, draw another smaller circle. In this circle place all the things science HAS observed, measured, tested and validated, DoneScience on. The only problem I have with this, is that you don't have any way to know with any kind of certainty what the large circle is, the "the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS" ... and the only known test for determining that something may be in that class is science, where conclusions are tentatively accepted as tested approximations of reality. That's why my circles start from the center with what we can know with some degree of confidence and then work out to areas where we have less and less confidence in those concepts reflecting reality.
I don't believe that scientist would find objectionable the idea that one can move from the smallest circle to the next larger circle. That is everyday science... going from what has been done to what can be done within sciences' self-imposed constraints. Scientists do this every day, building on the known approximation of reality and testing new concepts and ideas to build on and expand that knowledge base.
I do see scientists objecting to the idea of DoScience on things that are admittedly real and possibly CanDoScience. I saw that right here on this thread when I mentioned ideas.... something admittedly real. The problem is not with the concept, but with the known (to scientists) limitations of the scientific method and what science can test, you can't test every idea with science.
Not being a scientist, I cannot make the judgement whether science CAN be done on ideas. I have no answers on how you might observe, measure, test, replicate, etc. ideas. So you would agree that there are some concepts that cannot be studied by the scientific method and tested to see if they are valid approximations of reality ... they can still be rational, logical constructs based on the knowledge that we have, but this moves into the realm of philosophy and out of the realm of science and the ability of science to test. It is in the borderland between known and unknown.
Ideas may be CanDoScience or they may be CannotDoScience. I hope, if attempted, it turns out they are CannotDoScience. That would prove there is TotalReality beyond the box of CanDoScience. ... Curiously all I see it proving is that science cannot test the concept and that means that the validity of the concept is unknown.
... Given that final and absolute admission, scientists should be required to cease claiming that what they can't prove using their rules contradicts reality. First, science doesn't prove things, it shows that models\theories appear to match reality, and that additional refinements as they occur improve the approximation of reality that is the body of scientific knowledge. Second, you have it backwards: if the objective empirical evidence by which we measure reality contradicts a concept (whether scientific, philosophical or belief\opinion\faith) that concept is invalidated by the evidence of reality. Would you not agree that the objective empirical evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun in a remote arm of the milky way galaxy is much closer to reality than the concept that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars? Would you not agree that the only way for the earth to be flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars could be a valid concept is if the objective empirical evidence is illusory\fake\imaginary?
RAZD writes: Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, My point exactly. See above. Look up the definition of A Priori and tell me that is scientific. We all start with this assumption, that what we sense is because the objective empirical evidence that we sense is a reflection of reality rather than illusion. And this is why science is and always will be tentative, why the knowledge gleaned has to be considered an approximation of reality.
RAZD writes: and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. ... So you are saying that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars is a valid concept? You are saying that a 6,000 year old earth is as valid a concept as a 4.5 billion year old earth?
I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory. And again, I do not have any problem with this, nor do I think there are many scientists that would have any significant trouble with this statement. That does not mean that what can be tested and measured and modeled is not a good (if not the best we have) approximation of reality.
The scientific claim is valid only if you accept reductionist materialism as the only candidate for REAL And how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction? What is your method?
RAZD writes: The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real. I don't support illusions unless I want to read fiction. And again, how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction? Got long, sorry, I tend to do that ... got longer by putting in background quotes. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added quotes within quotes for clarity per Message 430by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't want to get hung up on semantics. If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks Let me break it down into four categories:
So the only concepts that are considered "not real" (ie false or invalid) are ones that have been invalidated\falsified, like the flat earth shape and it's relation to the universe or the age of the earth, etc. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The scientific method is a multi-step feedback system of increasing accuracy as invalid concepts are eliminated.
The scientific method has several steps, and a simple listing can be found at: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html
quote: That packs a lot of steps together, and it can be drawn out better (imho) in chart form:
Once the results have been replicated by others the hypothesis is considered a theory, and is accepted as a valid explanation of the evidence, but testing of the theory does not stop. Note that validation testing of the hypothesis\theory does not, cannot, prove it is true, rather the testing fails to prove that it is false, so attempts to prove it false continue Again from the above link:http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html quote: Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive (valid) results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be valid. This process rules out invalid concepts because their predicted results don't match the test results. Take the age of the earth as an example: We can observe that some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and thus we can start with an hypothesize that the earth is 6,000 years old. We test that with dendrochronology and find that tree rings extended back to 12,405 years ago in 2007, so the 6,000 year old age is invalid. So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 12,412 years old (in 2014) We test that with lake varves and find that the varves extended back to 35,930 years ago in 2007 so the 12,412 year old age is invalid. So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 35,937 years old (in 2014) We test that with ice cores and find that the ice layers extended back to 900,000 years ago in 2007 so the 35,930 year old age is invalid. So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 900,000 years old (in 2014) And we can continue in this way until we come to the radiometric data that shows the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old. You can also look up historical estimates of the age of the earth and see a similar process going on as new information was found for the age of the earth. The currently accepted age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, however this is subject to modification if new information shows an older age or invalidates the current accepted age. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This conforms to the evidence so I would conclude this was the design yes. Good, we are in agreement on this.
yes yes and yes. However, I do not argue against intervention. It would certainly be possible within my posit, however I have seen no credible evidence to conclude that it has occurred. Further activity by god/s if you want to call it that is not necessary, but then again it is not impossible either. Indeed. If there were intervention then we should see elements of design, such as borrowed traits and broken nesting of hierarchies. As these have not been observed to date leaves the concept untested, ie unknown.
I do not know enough about science to offer an opinion of whether science should investigate how but not why. If the field of science decides it needs to know the why I would have no problem with that. It's not so much deciding it needs to know as it is the limitations on the scientific method. Can we test and replicate why an artist chose a particular color for a painting or to distort a shape in a particular way to arrive at a work of art (think Van Gogh and "Starry Night")? What we can test and replicate is how the canvas is made and stretched, how the paints are made, how the colors are achieved, how they are applied, the thickness of the paint and the shape and condition of the brush, the force used to apply the paint, etc ... and in the end we can't test and replicate why some paintings are appealing, even when severely distorted from what is seen and observed.
I am not sure exactly where you are going here. Are we talking about the intent of the original design? Design toward a specific predetermined outcome v something else? Basically, if we cannot tell that design is involved then we can't know whether design is involved or not -- it is in the unknown category rather than valid or invalid.
In my belief system, The Tao continuously creates itself. Intent is not spoken of much. I suppose it could be creating through nothing but front-end design, or using infrequent manipulation as well or using frequent manipulation as well. Taoists don't speculate on that very much in my reading. In fact, there is a warning in Taoism to not think too much on the Tao itself or on creation as this can drive you crazy. Interesting. I like this, and consider that it compares well to particles popping in and out of existence or changing from one particle to another in quantum mechanics; the universe is in constant flux at the quantum level, reinventing itself moment by moment.
interesting. I think it's a good analogy that fits in my cosmic model. nothing in my system requires specific organisms as intended We are in basic agreement then. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I know you excluded the previous message quotes to avoid producing one what would be much longer yet. However, I am having a very hard time jumping into these things mid-quote and figuring them out. I will go back to the original post and do the best I can but it will take me a while. I've edited Message 428 to add background quotes for clarity. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If it would not be too much to ask, could you provide me an explicit list of any and all a priori assumptions used by science RE as to what is real or not. The only a priori assumption that is needed for science to work is that the objective empirical evidence represents reality. Once you make that assumption you can observe the objective empirical evidence and form hypothesis about how it works or what it represents, and then you can test that hypothesis against the objective empirical evidence or use it to uncover new objective empirical evidence. This forms a basis that can be built on by further hypothesis through logic If hypothesis A has not been invalidated then hypothesis B may be valid ... and then test THAT hypothesis against objective empirical evidence. Now hypothesis B is in double jeopardy for falsification of either hypothesis. We can also talk about confidence levels for different ideas We can have high confidence that the invalid (falsified) ideas are in fact wrong, as we have explicit evidence of it being wrong, so we know it is false. We can have moderate confidence in validated ideas that have not been falsified and which appear to work as predicted. The more these ideas work as predicted and are not falsified the more confidence we can have that they may be true. We can only have low to zero confidence in ideas that are untested or untestable, the unknowns. We can't say that they are right or wrong, just that we don't know. I've posted this elsewhere before:
Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable). Another distinction that you can make between II and III is that any observation is corroborated\tested\replicated by others. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Can we test and replicate why an artist chose a particular color for a painting or to distort a shape in a particular way to arrive at a work of art Yes we can investigate such thing scientifically. ... Curiously I almost posted a prediction that someone would make a pedantic knee-jerk reply, which I trust is caused by missing the point.
So how do you test the reasons why Picasso painted the face blue and mangled the face, hands and body? And don't confuse this with how he did it. Now if I was asked my opinion on why Picasso did it, I would reply that I don't know the mind of Picasso, I can't measure his thoughts. And if I was asked my opinion of how Picasso did it, I would reply that he drew lines and filled in colors with a paint brush, with paint that was on his palette. I could even say how he mixed colors to get to particular shades ... ... but I could not begin to hazard any kind of test or hypothesis for why that particular shade was chosen, nor do I see how anyone - other than Picasso - could answer that question, no matter how much they studied the painting, painting in general, the artist and artists in general.
Remember that not all scientific investigations require us to replicate at a whim. Cosmology? Geology? Paleontology? Remember that not everything is open to scientific investigations. Untestable ideas? Unfalsifiable concepts? Remember that not all concepts are scientific. Astrology? Religion? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously, I have to disagree.
Hydrogen atoms on their own are useless as building blocks. ... The first stars were pure hydrogen according to the standard model, and all the other elements have been formed by fusion within stars, so accordingly all matter is formed from hydrogen atoms in one way or another. Inert gases do not interact in chemical reactions (why they are called inert), but they have uses -- my new windows have argon between the panes to prevent moisture condensing on the inside and so they stay clean inside. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well no, if I take some useless lego bricks, melt them down, and use the plastic to make more useful lego bricks, that doesn't mean that the original bricks were good building blocks. It means that they were wasting raw material that could have been made into good building blocks. And yet, curiously, you don't get those "good building blocks" without starting with hydrogen according to the standard model. Rather than melting lego block I would use the analogy of construction, where you start with wood, then from the wood you make trusses. Further development lets you laminate wood into stronger members. From just wood you can build simple structures but with the refined materials built from wood you can build larger and more intricate structures. Or in abiogenesis, you start with self-replicating molecules that then build structures and become cells. It is simply a progression from simple to complex. A single lego block is not much to look at, but when you combine them you have a more complex structure. You can even model DNA activity with legos http://video.mit.edu/watch/dna-replication-with-legos-10133/ Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry, you're not getting it.
What is the causal force making Picasso choose blue at that moment? Can that be replicated so that another artist is forced to paint a face that specific blue? George Mallory - Wikipedia
quote: Curiously I note that there are a lot of mountains that are "there" and this answer does not explain why Mallory didn't climb those other mountains. Thus this answer does not have any predictive value that can be explored via science. Without predictions you can't test hypothesis. Picasso could have answered "because I felt like it" ... and this too does not provide any predictive value for any of his other paintings, colors and shapes etc. You could also conceivably ask 10 artist why they do what they do and get 10 different answers. The answers to this question are subjective. Conversely you could study how they do what they do and gather a lot of objective evidence. Science works on objective evidence. Why is the sky blue? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : testby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024