The Art and Method of Science
Overview
The progress of science depends on sweeping
panoramic viewpoints which are supported by a large body of observations and
experiments. The truth or falsity of most individual observations are insignificant
to the important foundations of our understanding of the world. There are always inconsistencies or small
unresolved issues in any guiding theory. It is a
crude and incomplete view of science that it is the ability to show the assumed
cause of any particular observation true or false with never failing certainty. While individual observations are the cement
in the construction of a scientific theory, they are in no way the bricks and
steel girders that constitute the actual building blocks of the edifice of
scientific truth.
 | ||
|
This view is a recent one, first formulated by Thomas Kuhn. (9) Part of the motivation for the theory
was to make sense of the observed historical progress of science. Science does not progress by the gradual
incorporation of observation and experiment.
There are drastic shifts in theoretical frameworks in which previous
perspectives may be largely rejected as incorrect or grossly incomplete. It is a revolutionary process, hence the
title of Kuhn seminal work, The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions. (9) This
doesn’t change the basic process of the scientific method, it only explains its
somewhat unexpected consequences.
 |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87
/Thomas_Kuhn.jpg/260px-Thomas_Kuhn.jpg Thomas Kuhn, American physicist, historian, and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was deeply influential in both academic and popular circles (16) |
Science is based on the devising of
plausible and provable explanations on how the universe works. Whether the machinery of life, the rules of
the machinations of the infinitesimal particles that make up the substance of
the universe, or the rules on the movements of everything in the universe,
these are attempts at total and extensive maps on how this or that aspect of
the universe functions. The product of
the scientific method is a big perspective theory, not the validity of
falsification of a few facts. Every grand
theory is a grand gamble, and every theoretician knows that all gamblers
ultimately lose. The meaning and joy is
in the playing of the game. The game
keeps changing as we gather new and more complete information. A paradox of scientific truth is that the
laws of the universe do not change, but our understanding of them is undergoing
constant unavoidable change so they are effectively in a constant state of error.
 |
| A Young Werner Heisenberg |
The “concepts” as Heisenberg terms
them, or more conceptually encompassing “paradigms” as Kuhn terms them,
typically completely displace what came before them. It is not possible to even understand one
paradigm in the terms of another. Some
examples of this:
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons /8/8f/Fotothek_df_tg_0007129_Theosophie_%5E_Alchemie.jpg Seventeenth century alchemical emblem showing the four Classical elements in the corners of the image, alongside the tria prima on the central triangle. |
-
The theories of matter based on ancient Greek
physics that all matter is made of the elements Earth, Air, Water and Fire. This concept of elements lasted
until the 1600s until a range of “elements” defined as substances that couldn’t
be broken down into simpler substances by any chemical reactions started to be
discovered and accumulate in a lengthening list. The new paradigm reached an apex in the 1800s
when Dmitri Mendeleev proposed the periodic table of the elements.
-
The replacement of the Earth as the center of
the universe with the sun.
-
The replacement of Newtonian physics with
Quantum Physics in the early 20th century.
- The theory of evolution.
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons /thumb/b/b3/Dmitri_Ivanowitsh_Mendeleev.jpg/ 220px-Dmitri_Ivanowitsh_Mendeleev.jpg Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev formulated the periodic law of the elements and devised the periodic table of the elements |
What constitutes actual scientific
concepts as opposed to useless pseudoscience is not always trivial to
determine. There have been cases where
pseudoscience appeared authentic. There are instances when science which
ultimately proved correct appeared implausible and unprovable when first
proposed.
"It is not even wrong"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb
/4/43/Pauli.jpg/250px-Pauli.jpg
Nobel Laureate Physicist Wolfgang Pauli 1900-1958
-- Wolfgang Pauli
There are some guidelines that have
proved historically reliable. Pseudoscience
often serves a religious or ideological belief, has a ready audience and is
promoted widely. Lysenkoism, which
distorted genetics to suit the Russian regime of Stalin is a classic example of
pseudoscience serving a nonscientific purpose.
In our time “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” are iconic examples
of pseudoscience.
A scientific theory or paradigm is
usually based on a large body of existing science, especially if it strives to
reject the reigning theory. This
prerequisite of understanding what came before and reconciling with it even in
the most radical of revolutions – is a hallmark of science.
A hurdle in understanding how
science works is that the “large picture” views of the world essential to the scientific
method are not themselves directly provable as true or false. Only the obvious and trivial can be easily
proven or disproved, indeed the obvious and the trivial is immediately
eliminated from consideration or accepted.
The accumulation of non-trivial provable facts provide a steady bulwark
for an ambitious edifice or contradict it enough to cause it to topple. The big picture view is the real achievement
of science, and not the random accumulation of the bits and pieces it rests
on. The heart of science are the
paradigms that explain the structure and meaning of the world around us.
Falsifiability is another important
building block of science. This narrows
the scope of what is accessible to the scientific method enormously, but gives
scientific truth its unique value. A
concept must be testable, i.e. if a test can’t be designed to prove something
false it is not something which can be investigated scientifically. If the criteria were to be that a hypothesis
must be proved true science would be an impossible endeavor. This is sadly a consequence of simple
logic. Some clever person might succeed
in proving this a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics and/or visa
versa.
Most assertions claim a rule that applies in all or at least statistically
all cases. Thus a statement like “crows
are black” would apply to all crows. If
you were to find one white crow, you would have to either change the assertion
or explain the discrepancy by modifying the original assertion. On the other hand, in order to say the
statement is exactly true that “all crows are black” you would have to examine
every crow that has ever existed, an impossible task. In practice the population of crows would be
sampled and the reliability of the sample as representing the whole population would be estimated. The price of the statistical proof is constant vigilance that the assertion has not been disproved by continuing observation.
 | |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Karl Popper, (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) Philosoper of science and originator of the concept of falsifiability. |
Falsifiability and the “large
picture” view of the world, both essential to the scientific method seem to
contradict each other. The big picture
is only indirectly falsifiable but depends on the falsifiability of the bits
and pieces used to justify its truth. Herein
lies the true nature and power of science.
It is these contradictory necessities in science which give it such
power and scope. Just as a large wall
which appears to curve gradually can be built of small absolutely straight
rectangular bricks, the paradigms of science start out as plans made of
unproven belief and then are built of observations and experiments which defy
falsity bit by little bit. A crucial
false brick can bring down the whole structure.
A statement loosely attributed to Einstein summarizes the state of
affairs, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single
experiment can prove me wrong.” (11) The
fact that the progress of science might be difficult to understand, and its
method subtle in its opposing tendencies does not at all detract from its
value or validity. The name associated with the
concept of falsifiability is Karl Popper (12), who defined the concept with precision
and opened the door to ceaseless debate which persists today.
Another subtlety of the scientific
approach to the world is that at the base of the rigorous rational and
experimental hurdles to acceptance are unprovable postulates and
hypothesis. The mathematical and
statistical methods which are fundamental to scientific models are based on a
series of assumptions of logic and number structure. Concepts such as matter, energy, and time are
frozen in an eternal Catch 22. They
appear as metaphysical assumptions without which no models of the world can be
constructed, but then they have been productive in generating falsifiable
science for hundreds and possibly thousands of years.
They have been honed and refined over the
epochs of human exploration of the world, and evolve and change to the dictates
of the scientific method. They like the
scientific method itself are not incompatible with religion and faith but one
must respect boundaries of the territories of human psyche that each resides
in.
There are examples where discoveries were made that
established key points of paradigms that were not yet formulated in ways that
they caught the attention of the scientific community. This occurrence is baffling and a common enough
occurrence to have been examined by a prominent molecular biologist, Gunther
Stent. He termed it “prematurity” and
used the example of the early proof by Avery et al in 1944 that DNA is the
molecule that carries genetic information.
This experimental proof was essentially ignored, and it wasn’t until
1952 that this concept gained the attention of the molecular biology community
through the work of others. (14) Stent
has stated the condition for “prematurity” as “A discovery is premature if its
implications cannot be connected by a series of simple logical steps to
contemporary canonical or generally accepted knowledge.” (15)
It seems that the progress of science has an element of the capricious and fickle. The established reputation of a scientist before a truly important discovery, the timing of the discovery and the discipline of the workers it is reported to all can influence the dissemination of a scientific discovery. The cultural milieu in the society at large at the time of the discovery can influence the degree of attention paid to it. This barely scratches the depth of failings and imperfections of the scientific endeavor in practice. This impulsivity and whimsy should not be taken as a failing of large magnitude but a comfort. After all science is an enduring human endeavor and shares the most fundamental social and cultural characteristics of the species.
 |
| http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/06/25 /guntherstent_narrowweb__300x459,0.jpg Gunther Stent, molecular biologist and historian and philosopher of science |
There are many questions that
science is not capable of addressing.
The scientific method is quite restrictive, requiring the ability to construct
experiments and perform observations that comprehensively test a paradigm in
order to be useful. The standard of
proof is high and it is common for what seems like solid proof to vanish in the
light of new experiments, observations or sometimes even a change of
perspective. While faith based religion
or politics and science are not mutually exclusive, the intrusion of
assumptions from faith or politics into science are usually unproductive or
worse. The list is long of interference
with the progress of science from the arguments over whether the Earth rotates
around the sun, the distortion of genetics to satisfy Russian political
doctrine or our current battles over the inclusion of the completely
unscientific doctrines of creationism and intelligent design as science.
Does the Sun Rotate around the Earth?
An instructive and fascinating
episode which demonstrates the long lineage of scientific methodology is the
battle between those who thought that the sun and all other heavenly bodies
rotated around the Earth, and those who thought that the planets rotated around
the sun. The way the scientific debate
unfolded is quite surprising. This was a
paradigm shift rich in irony and the foibles of humanity which represents the scientific method being acted out in the real world. There is much to be appreciated from the events of 400 years ago.
 |
| http://www.black-holes.org/images/CopernicanSystem_Small.jpg The Copernican Model of the Solar System |
The argument did not at all go in
the way we were taught in our early education. We are taught (at least I and my
classmates in secondary school were taught) that Copernicus was opposed by the Catholic
Church in his ideas, and that courageous scientifically minded colleagues
supported him. Any final doubts were
resolved by Galileo and his telescope.
The actual historical record as compiled by Christopher Graney and others (5,6,13)
shows that this is far from the truth.
In fact, the scientific evidence at the time clearly disproved
Copernicus’s hypothesis.
The objections to Copernicus’s
model of the Earth rotating around the sun were logical and based on the best
science of the day. The stars had a size
to the naked eye that could be measured and was reproducible between
observers. Careful measurements were
taken by astronomers of the stars exact positions at the annual extreme of what
would be the rotation of the Earth around the sun if Copernicus was
correct. No parallax shift was
detected. Simple geometry could be
applied to the lack of parallax and the apparent size, yielding stars that were
inordinately large and distant. Farther
and larger than anyone of that age could conceive as being reasonable. Furthermore, if the sun were a star like the
others we see why was it so small as compared to every other star we could
see. The difference was enormous, the
calculated ratio would make the sun like a pea, and the smallest star the size
of a mountain. The Copernican model
predicted that stars would be thousands to tens of thousands the volume of the
Earth or the Sun. The Earth and Sun were
assumed at the time to be roughly the same size.
 |
| http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/BigPictures/ Copernicus_16.jpeg Copernicus |
The debate took on some distinctly
unscientific directions. Some Copernicans
such as Christoph Rothmann (c. 1560 - c. 1600) argued that the Creator was all powerful and could
make the stars any size he wanted to. (6)
The objection to this reasoning by perhaps the most famous astronomer of
the day, Tycho Brahe, cited the esthetic sensibilities of the omnipotent
creator, “where in nature do we see the Will of God acting in an irregular or
disorderly manner?”(13) The arguments
about a supreme Creator’s feelings aside, the scientific evidence was clearly
and convincingly against the Copernican model.
We have the great irony of Jesuit priests such as Giovanni Battista
Riccioli (1598-1671) taking a strictly scientific stand against the religious
arguments of the supporters of Copernicus. (5)
This compelling evidence against
the theory of Copernicus was only itself disproved in the last 200 years. Although by the scientific paradigms of this
day we know that Copernicus was correct, all indications by any rigorous
scientific evaluation in his day was that he was wrong. The stars are effectively point sources of
light, and the appearance of a size however reproducible is an illusion caused
by the optics of the eye. This was not
resolved by the early use of telescopes either, as they exhibit an analogous
optical artifact.
Another irony is that if the
scientific method was more rigorously applied at the time of Copernicus, his
theories might have been ignored and fallen into an extreme of the category of “premature.”
This would have been extreme as it was more than 300 years before the evidence
to support it was available and accepted, and by then his work might have been
completely lost in historical obscurity.
 |
|
http://darwin-online.org.uk/life22c.html
Charles Darwin 1881 |
The Theory of Evolution – One of Science’s Greatest Triumphs
One of the most successful scientific paradigms is the theory of evolution. It is one of the few scientific paradigms
that have stood the assaults of skeptics and the withering fire of experiment
and observation for more than 150 years.
It is an unparalleled achievement of humanity and the reach of the human
mind.
 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Darwin, aged 45 in 1854, by then working towards publication of On the Origin of Species
(17)
|
In Chapter 15 of “The Origin of
Species” Darwin makes the following statement which captures the nature of a
scientific paradigm. This is such a
powerful statement that Louis Lapham showcased it to promote his Lapham’s Quarterly. (20)
“How strange it is that a bird,
under the form of woodpecker, should have been created to prey on insects on
the ground; that upland geese, which never or rarely swim, should have been
created with webbed feet; that a thrush should have been created to dive and
feed on subaquatic insects; and that a petrel should have been created with
habits and structure fitting it for the life of an auk or grebe! And so on in
endless other cases. But on the view of each species constantly trying to
increase in number, with natural selection always ready to adapt the slowly
varying descendants of each to any unoccupied or ill-occupied place in nature,
these facts cease to be strange, or perhaps might even have been anticipated.”
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons /thumb/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg /220px-Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg |
This statement boldly asserts a
paradigm; an assertion that has withstood revolutions in physics, molecular
biology, chemistry; along with bald-faced superstitions and presuppositions
based on various political and religious metaphysics for a century and a half. The above quote shows what a scientific
paradigm is, pure and concentrated insight of a grand view of the world. It is not a proof or refutation of individual
observations, or getting a different result by varying the conditions of an
experiment. It is a guiding view, a map
of the whole territory which changes the significance of existing results. New experiments and observations are
suggested that would not have been thought of under the existing conceptual
framework. Unlikely results might are predicted. The view of the world is turned upside down. A grand existing edifice shatters and
collapses.
Field Guide to Paradigms
Paradigms do not compromise, they
do not take the path that satisfies the minimum demands of conflicting
interests. It is one of the few
endeavors of humankind in which absolutism is justified and reasonable. The price is the
transitory nature of the successful paradigm.
Rather than fight and die for current paradigm, the scientist is
exalted by its downfall and the wonder in the world and its ability to make our
best models transitory.
A paradigm stays in force as long
as it is productive. Productivity is defined as the continued yield of falsifiable results from observation and experiment consistent with the paradigm. A paradigm must result in the continued production
of falsifiable results or it is replaced by a more productive one. There is constant work on an existing
paradigm, if its basic results aren’t contested or in question, the
quantitative accuracy is under unrelenting investigation.
It is important to note that a new
framework in general cannot be proved or disproved by a single or even multiple
experiments. The scope is too
large. There are important exceptions to
this dictum. Results that were not understood before the paradigm was proposed
become harmonious with the way things are perceived to work. An unrelated results become related.
An example is the case of the
framework given by General Relativity. Arthur
Eddington’s measurements of the gravitational shift of light were questioned by
many scientists. (1) Einstein postulated
that matter bends space (which he associated with time in a radical new
paradigm where space and time were interwoven) and in 1919 the astrophysicist
Arthur Eddington observed the apparent position of stars near the sun during an
eclipse shift towards the sun. This
observation was inconsistent with the models of space except for the paradigm
of General Relativity proposed by Einstein.
In fact this break with Newtonian Physics required this result. This was an unusual case in which one
observation had a worldwide impact on the acceptance of a new scientific
paradigm.
Science in its most essential
manifestation is a conspiracy. It is a
subversion of blind faith, a foray of reason into the hostile territory of
supposition, habit, accepted experience, word of mouth and rumor. A incessant coup d’etat over the government
of the conscious mind requiring that belief must be verified by ever evolving reason
and experiment or perish. There are very few institutions in human history that
take the constant overthrow and replacement of their fundamental doctrines as
not only acceptable, but as the highest accomplishment within the institution. Human curiosity and intellectual
focus are diminished by the commonplace and lack of challenge.
There are paradoxes within the
practice of science itself, perhaps it is these difficulties in an endeavor
that strives for logic and objective proof that enigmatically contributes to
its success and endurance. Dogma is left less
protected and more insecurely entrenched than in other human endeavors. These admirable traits make the scientific process harder to understand and creates
vulnerabilities to assaults from pseudoscience. The insistence on objective testable truth
resulting in a constant reformation of the framework in virtually every
scientific discipline might cause torment that truth is too transitory. The more global and thus
important the paradigm, the less it is directly testable. In an enterprise where the beliefs held in
the past are subject to constant refutation, detailed study and understanding of past work and
paradigms are vital and indispensable to forward progress.
There has been a recent push in
medicine and dentistry to base treatments on evidence based medicine
(ECM).(3,4) The originators of this
methodology in the early 1990’s advocated a balanced and sensible application
of the use of outside evidence in the practice of medicine. In fact, the most important change proposed
was in the education of medical students to insure that they were adequately
trained in researching the scientific literature.(3) However some proponents of the method have
become intoxicated with the crusader’s zeal for the end all be all solution to
all things.
Is Medicine a Scientific Discipline?
While one would want a physician or
dentist to respect and incorporate the results of scientific inquiry, a
physician or dentist who strictly adheres to the scientific method will lose
many practical and powerful tools in their repertoire. Most practical applications benefit from the
skills and artistic sensibilities of the practitioner. Experience and skill can result in different
outcomes from application of the same medical techniques by different
practitioners.
 |
| http://www.iep.utm.edu/hippocra/ While Hippocrates, the so-called father of medicine, lived in the early 5th century B.C., the famous oath that bears his name emerged a century later. No one knows who first penned it. (18) |
Medicine is burdened with
restrictions and limitations not imposed on purely scientific endeavors. The Hippocratic Oath defines what is expected of a physician beyond what is expected of a scientist, craftsman, engineer or almost any other professional. The role of the physician in society has a long history of special status and requirements. Modern and ancient versions of the Hippocratic Oaths are reproduced below.
The range of experimentation on human subjects is limited by ethical and humanitarian considerations. The use of rigorous controls is frequently unethical. Individual variations and environmental variables are difficult to control and assess and the urgency to provide the best treatment possible requires subjective judgements. Patients maintain significant control over the treatment they receive. All of these factors and more make application of strict scientific methodology difficult at best and unethical at worst.
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
—Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943. (18)
The range of experimentation on human subjects is limited by ethical and humanitarian considerations. The use of rigorous controls is frequently unethical. Individual variations and environmental variables are difficult to control and assess and the urgency to provide the best treatment possible requires subjective judgements. Patients maintain significant control over the treatment they receive. All of these factors and more make application of strict scientific methodology difficult at best and unethical at worst.
Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in
whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with
those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are
required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic
nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and
that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's
knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in
my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's
recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not
disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread
with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a
life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life;
this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth,
but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and
economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems,
if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special
obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body
as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected
while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act
so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long
experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of
Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. (18)
Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
—Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943. (18)
Science and the Larger Human Condition
Individual scientists have made
critical contributions to science without any recourse to the humanities. However, science as an enterprise is
dependent on the humanities for its continuing success, possibly for its very
existence. Science by its nature is often
at odds with social conventions and practices cherished by the general culture.
At other times certain of its products
have such impact and overriding value to the society that all
objectivity and realism about the practice of science is lost. It is the perspective and understanding of
the place of science in the larger culture from the humanities that maps a
constructive partnership and a strategy for its appropriate support and
encouragement.
In Martin Kemp's Seen|Unseen (19), he demonstrates the interplay of art and science, and how each has deeply influenced the other since the Renaissance. In both art and science are projected the biases and nuances of the culture and times of the scientist or artist. The arts/humanities and the sciences both attempt to address the visible and material world; and the invisible,speculative and abstract world sometimes the one in terms of the other. Neither approach can avoid the distorting lenses of the time and place of the artist or scientist. The biases extend beyond the immediate culture to the very evolutionary structure of our mind and how we evolved to see and survive in the world.
The intuition and motivating wonder is the same for both humanities and science, no matter how different the goals and methods. I have tried to capture the strivings of science in this essay. The arts have a broader mandate, that of suggestion, discovery, perspective and emotional encounter. Both art and science feed back to the culture and modify its structure and progress as well as elucidate it to its constituents as well as those who follow and view what came before through the fog of history. It might be that our very brains and social structures are changed by theses visions and paradigms.
Kemp concludes his book with the plea that "...the visual qualities of art are too important to be left solely as the prerogative of art professionals and the implications of the visual worlds of science are too significant to be given over wholly to the scientists. I have a powerful sense that effective art and science both begin at the points where knowledge breaks down. Visual intuitions are one of the most potent tools we possess for feeling our way into the unknown." (19, pg.330)
In Martin Kemp's Seen|Unseen (19), he demonstrates the interplay of art and science, and how each has deeply influenced the other since the Renaissance. In both art and science are projected the biases and nuances of the culture and times of the scientist or artist. The arts/humanities and the sciences both attempt to address the visible and material world; and the invisible,speculative and abstract world sometimes the one in terms of the other. Neither approach can avoid the distorting lenses of the time and place of the artist or scientist. The biases extend beyond the immediate culture to the very evolutionary structure of our mind and how we evolved to see and survive in the world.
 |
| http://www.martinjkemp.com/images/ martin3.jpg Martin Kemp is Emeritus Research Professor in the History of Art at Oxford University. He has written and broadcast extensively on imagery in art and science from the Renaissance to the present day. |
Kemp concludes his book with the plea that "...the visual qualities of art are too important to be left solely as the prerogative of art professionals and the implications of the visual worlds of science are too significant to be given over wholly to the scientists. I have a powerful sense that effective art and science both begin at the points where knowledge breaks down. Visual intuitions are one of the most potent tools we possess for feeling our way into the unknown." (19, pg.330)
Science has little to say about
ethics and morality outside the practice of the scientific method. The results of scientific progress have had
an enormous impact on ethics and morality in every culture that hosts
scientific inquiry. It is easy for a
scientist to disengage from moral and ethical responsibilities in order to
just practice science. This was
illustrated starkly by the role of many prominent scientists in equipping Nazi
Germany with the tools of war in the 1930s and 1940s.
It is no accident that countries in
opposition to each other frequently encourage scientific exchanges. Even as science is key in establishing and
maintaining technological, industrial and armaments advantages, there are still
areas of scientific endeavor that every nation sees mutual benefit from. On
occasion scientific exchanges are pathways to establishing more cordial
relations. A hallmark of a truly
civilized nation is the recognition of the value of knowledge of the universe
around us as having intrinsic and universal value to all humankind.
 |
| http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period -- and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. |
The Gallop Poll has been asking Americans for 30 years now if God created man in his present form in the last 10,000 years. In 2013 46% of the population polled answered yes to that question, choosing that answer over two alternatives that suggested evolution, with and without “God’s guidance.” Clearly the greatest triumph of science in the last two centuries remains a conspiracy.
References
1) Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What
Everyone Should Know about Science, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1993. ISBN
0-521-35601-6
2) Heisenberg, Werner, Encounters With
Einstein And Other Essays on People Places and Particles, Princeton
University Press, 1983.
3) Sackett,
David L., et al, Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't,
British Medical Journal 1996;312:71-72 (13 January)
4) Zimerman , Ariel L., Evidence-Based
Medicine: A Short History of a Modern Medical Movement, American
Medical Association Journal of Ethics, January 2013, Volume 15, Number 1:
71-76.
5) Graney,
Christopher M., The Telescope Against Copernicus: Star Observations by
Riccoli Supporting a Geocentric Universe, Journal of the History of
Astronomy, 41:4, 453-467, November 2010
6) Danielson, Dennis, Graney, Christopher
M., The Case Against Copernicus, Scientific American , 310:1, 72-77,
January 2014
7) Lilghtman,
Alan, Our Place in the Universe: Face to Face with the Infinite, Harpers
325:19, 33-38, December 20
9) Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1962. 2nd edition 1970. 3rd edition 1996
13) Graney,
Christopher M., Stars as the Armies of God: Lansbergen’s Incorporation of
Tycho Brahe’s Star-Size Argument into the Copernican Theory Journal for the
History of Astronomy 44(2)165-172 May 2013
14) Stent,
Gunther S., Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery, Advances in the
Biosciences 8:433-499, 1072
15) Hook,
Ernest B., editor, Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and
Neglect, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002
19) Kemp,
Martin, Seen | Unseen: Art, science, and Intuition from Leonardo to
the Hubble Telescope, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006
20) http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/theme-and-variation.php
