[MD] What all is about.

[Ron Kulp]

Ham:
My point was simply to distinguish the "creative imagination" of artists and writers from the intuitive reasoning of philosophers in the hope of discouraging a marriage of the two.  However, I can see that my comments have opened a can of worms, mainly because attempting to show that the methodology of Science must be non-subjective has been interpreted by some to mean that scientists themselves are not creative.

[Ron]
Recently science has come to the realization that it can be nothing but 
Subjective. It strives for precision and accuracy in observation but
The observer is ultimately human, given to cultural perceptions whether 
aware of them or not. Complete objectivity is an illusion. 

I understand your point about creative suppositions masquerading 
as precision Metaphors, But this was not how you Presented it
initially. 

Thanks Ham.





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:50 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] What all is about.

Ian, Ron, Platt, SA, et al --

[Ian]:
> Prompted by Ron quoting Ham as saying ...
> Most scientists I know would be insulted by Pirsig's phrase "the
> throes of creative discovery".  Scientists don't want their
> discoveries to be creative; they want them to be objective if not
> totally random or "accidental".
>
> And what is good, Ham ?
>
> The kind of scientist you are describing Ham is some caricature of a
> brain-dead scientific technician, not a real, quality scientist. It's
> a cliché to quote Einstein yet again .... so I won't. Look at any
> philosopher of science or philosophical scientist in the last 100 years
> and you'll find that the creative spark is well recognized as the hard
> bit.
>
> As Ron says - even if we start from the existence of a physical world
> out there - the vast, vast majority of it is alien to direct human
> experience or even any indirect observation. A large and important part
> of good science is concerned with understanding, explanation and
> metaphor, a hugely creative task, and art.
>
> Why be in such ignorant denial of this Ham ?
> Why drive in a divisive wedge ? Cui bono ?

My point was simply to distinguish the "creative imagination" of artists and 
writers from the intuitive reasoning of philosophers in the hope of 
discouraging a marriage of the two.  However, I can see that my comments 
have opened a can of worms, mainly because attempting to show that the 
methodology of Science must be non-subjective has been interpreted by some 
to mean that scientists themselves are not creative.

The fact that most educated people, including scientists, understand the 
need to isolate subjective bias from scientific investigation has led to 
numerous articles on the Internet advocating more "creativity" in the 
scientific disciplines.  While much of this new thinking is an effort by 
school administrators to increase enrollment in scientific studies, a number 
of scientists have joined the bandwagon and are now urging their colleagues 
to adapt a more creative approach.

Perhaps this paragraph from Encyclopedia Britannica.com will help to mediate 
the controversy:

"While the processes of creative thinking in artistic and scientific 
pursuits have much in common, there are also distinctive differences. The 
artist places more importance on feeling and individual expression, often 
going to extremes to divorce himself from environmental constraints. The 
scientist relies more on disciplined, logical thinking to lead him in new 
directions. Artistic endeavour is dominantly expressive (although clearly 
oriented toward a goal), while scientific inventiveness is dominantly 
disciplined (although flexibly receptive to feelings and to imaginative 
experiences)."

To set the record straight, I fully appreciate the need for innovation and 
reflection in objective research and technology, as well as maintaining a 
standard of quality in these pursuits.  To the extent that such intellectual 
guidelines are "creative", I applaud them.  At the same time, for a theorist 
in Science or Philosophy to allow his imagination to "run wild" in order to 
gain notoriety or celebrity status demeans the credibility of his 
profession.

Thanks for all your responses.

Essentially yours,
Ham


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/