Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (40209)	6/12/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 108807

Yes, I think you do misunderstand. Esthetics (art, literature, music, etc.) and science are fundamentally different, and to rank them on the same scale is a silly and meaningless exercise. Further, they serve fundamentally different purposes. I think the problem arises when those of us who are not versed in the sciences start to talk about the truths emerging from from the arts as if these truths were on an equal footing with the truths that emerge from science. Clearly, they are not. There is no objective truth in esthetics. If there is a "truth" it is entirely subjective. We look to the arts to provide us with subjective insights. We look to music and graphic arts and poetry to provide esthetic resonance. I am listening to Beethoven's Razumofsky Quartets while writing this post. Above my computer I have a print of "Starry Night". **** Not so for science. Here, "truth" is entirely objective in the sense that experimental results are repeatable and do not depend on the identity of the experimenter. But esthetics does. Different people have different tastes in music, literature and art. And esthetic tastes change with time. It would be foolish to talk about different tastes in science. TTFN, CTC