SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Two days back while I was searching for synonyms and antonyms for some words on internet dictionary sites, I was shocked to see that on some of them art was given as an antonym for science! The gray cells of my brain went into intense activity immediately and started analyzing scientific and artistic sides of my personality and mind to see whether there was any truth in it.

Although science and art are dealt in two different ways, developed and evolved as two separate fields, they are coming together again in recent times. Art and science are related in several ways ( please read my thoughts on this subject here:  http://kkartlab.in/group/scienceart ). According to old misconceptions, creativity comes mostly from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts originate in the other part of the brain (there are different theories that are coming out about functions of different parts of the brain in recent times, and the left part for science and right part for art is not actually correct according to these and whole brain works at different degrees in all most everything we do). Left brain or right brain works doesn't mean they are completely opposite. Leonardo da Vinci  disproved that these two fields are poles apart and  couldn't be dealt with a single brain at the same time. It is my endeavour to prove that these two fields could be brought together and made to live in harmony in a single box of grey matter.

I can use all parts of my brain simultaneously without any problem. Even while creating art works, I can think rationally and logically. Science has influence on my art and art too has some influence on my scientific thinking. In my mind I don't see worlds of difference between these two fields. 

Yes, science demands thinking at higher levels with logic and rationale. Creating art is easy and you walk here on a beaten track and the destination is preconceived in the mind of the creator. Scientific exploration is much more difficult and complex and one has to create new paths into unknown lands.

Although human emotions (yes, you can work in the field you love) come into picture in the scientific field - as is the case with all the ones where people are involved - they are not important at all like in the field of art. Therefore, a scientific mind tries to keep emotions at bay while working and this is important to clear the path while searching for truth and facts. It cannot allow emotions to fog the picture. A scientist cannot say " Because I love this - this is the truth!" or " Because I believe in this theory - this must be a fact!"

An artist has this luxury of emotions playing a major part in his work. He can push all rationale out of the window and say, " Because I love this - this is the truth and therefore I can create my work very beautifully!" He can live in a world of illusion or dreams if he wants. And there is no harm in it as long as his beliefs don't harm or affect others drastically. And in an emotionally charged right part of the brain creative sparks originate, develop and flourish.

A poet describes the moon as a beautiful object. An artist paints it in all splendid colours. An astrophysicist sees it as a natural satellite of earth with rocks and no atmosphere or life. When I think about moon as an artist, I feel happy because I could see it as an object of beauty - shining like a silver ball in the dark sky. And when I think about moon as a person from the field of science, I can still see the beauty of scientific theories like gravity, time, space and how wonderfully they are followed in this universe. Science too has a pretty view!

Now am I thinking as a creative person or as a person of rational thinking? Do these thoughts from different angles drastically change the perception of beauty? Not at all! These things don't have a clearly marked line between them in my mind! Then how can they be separate?! I feel these things are associated with human training of the mind. Your beliefs, dogmas, thoughts, opinions could have tremendous affect on how you perceive things in the art world. And science doesn't give you this choice. You got to see them in the true way in the latter case. With the right attitude you can see beauty of things both scientifically and artistically at the same time. You can think rationally about art too! Maybe I am lucky to be able to view the world from two different angles and  still see the beauty of it all!

There is a leaf or a flower. An artist enjoys the beauty of it superficially - yes only superficially. A scientist takes the help of a microscope or a spectrometer and sees the inside beauty as well. Believe me the whole picture is more beautiful  - as you go to cellular, molecular and atomic levels to understand it fully - you see more rhythm and beauty in the creations of nature. The experience of observing nature in its full splendor is more wonderful and thrilling. It is a new world. Trying to understand the world fully  is a heavenly feeling. A scientist can see more in this world than an artist!

Although scientific way of seeing things is deep, it is only an extension or expansion of observing beauty artistically. I don't think these two are opposite  ways. When artists try to draw pictures of what they see outside, scientists try to construct things that are deep inside. While artists see only a part of the picture, scientists see the whole picture!

An artist can close his mind whenever he wants and can still go ahead with his work (here "closing mind" refers to new thoughts, ideas and work of other people not about his own work or hand movements!!)   but in Science if you close your mind, that will be the end of your journey! This is because in art people create isolated works of different types but in science most of the work is inter-dependent as we live in an universe that is governed by the same laws of Nature!

You can break rules ( formulated by some people although they are not absolute ones) while creating art and can still produce masterpieces and in science if you don't follow rules of the nature, disaster strucks and you will be doomed ( can you disobey laws of gravity etc. while sending rockets into space?!) .

Yes, in art you have more freedom than in science.

In Science your work speaks for itself and you but in art you got to speak for your art and promote yourself to succeed.

These differences are not big enough to make art antonym for science.

Has at any time a conflict occurred in my mind because of art and science residing side by side there? No. Never!

Drawing figures of all that I see and observe in the scientific studies, research and exploration is a part of my work. I never think or treat it as a different field or entity. It is a part of science! If drawing figures is also art - how can it be an antonym for science? I don't understand how anyone can throw these two into opposite sides and say science and art are antonyms for each other! People who can use their brains  holistically  can disprove this antonym myth.

Just because the left part of the brain is more active in scientists and the right part in artists, can we say they are opposite? It is the same brain  ( or the same mind) that is working! A scientist can make the right part of his brain active too like I do and an artist can become a rational- thinking person. My mind and brain work as a single unit both when I am creating art and working on science problems. Maybe because I mostly create art works based on science and science is integral part of whatever I do, I don't see much difference. Yes, there are differences between how a scientist works and how an artist works but they are not completely opposite! My mind says: Battle of right brain vs. left brain?  Why not use both?

Sorry, my rational and logical thinking mind doesn't allow me to put science and art on opposite poles. And I can say with confidence that anybody who tries to create rift between these two doesn't know how to use his or her brain the right way!

PS...

(Here, in this part of the world, people say when your works and deeds help others and the society in general  in any possible way that is the right way of doing things. If they cause harm and ill will, that is the wrong way! Of course these are relative terms and definitions for right and wrong differ from place to place.)

 

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa

Copyright © 2011

 

Views: 1112

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

please, Giulia, let me know who`s mind is capable of reseting somebody`s else hemispheres, and incase there`s one, let me know the superviser.

giulia occorsio said:
This statement is very profound and poetic! I agree...
pataphysics is hooked to holistic that could be applied dichotomy of "Art/Science" as an interdisciplinary approach, the fulcrum between scientific rationality and artistic freedom...
anything that helps is worth it!, it can be part of science, if helps it in any sense, in psicology work together, and I wonder if some deseaseas are not produced by our own mind, so, tell me what you think,if you please.
I think every human being, artist or scientist who needs the complement rational or creative to get a valid result
Thought so.Thank you!

Another baseless belief! There are several Paraphychology theories that are considered as pseudo-science! This year most of the pseudo-scientific areas the experts chose came from parasphychology because they cannot be proved and are mainly based on peoples' beliefs! Yes, here in pseudo-science, an observer  can become an observant too!   Anything can happen if you believe that it can happen and live in a world of illusion.  This is one of the gray areas of science and most people believe in it! If they refuse to see the difference between pure science and pseudo-science what can I say?!  

Here I will give an example of my own experience. While I was studying for my M.Sc. final exams ( I always study with such concentration that all that written in the books appear before me in the examination hall and  I don't miss even a single point and that is how I got all top ranks in all my exams!),  a sparrow started flying above me making noises & disturbing my concentration. I got annoyed and looked at the sparrow and said, "Get lost, you are disturbing me!" And as soon as I said those words the sparrow caught in the blades of the running ceiling fan above and  got mauled, its feathers scattering all around me and the sparrow fell before me lying dead! I was shocked and moved by the scene! It haunted me for days. I didn't expect this to happen and I definitely didn't mean it! I only wanted the sparrow to go out and not to disturb me. I felt very bad about it for days. People who heard this story said I had paranormal abilities and started fearing me. But I don't believe I have any such abilities. It was just a coincidence but people attributed several such things to me and some even said I was a Godess and could curse them if they did anything bad to me! I feel all this is rubbish. I definitely don't have any abilities to do things in the way I want if I just only think or say anything about them. But will people listen?! Another example of baseless belief!

Taking the examples of   minority of some black sheep in science and thinking that it is an universal phenomenon is not right. Majority of the scientists accept whatever results they get and try not to influence the results. They don't  get obsessed with their expectations and try to influence the results if they don't realize them. They try not to become one with the object of observation.

The people who try to influence the results of science are following the path of peudo-science and not real science! If people don't get results they had expected, they get disappointed and try to influence them by manipulating things. One leads into another although they are different . Yes, it happens sometimes.  This is putting "I" above Universality.  People who follow real science accept whatever results they get and don't try to stamp their authority on Natural laws! There is no place for ego in pure science. In my mind I am very clear about these things whatever people might say.

Saying that others' logic and points are always wrong without trying to understand them properly is also a proof of living in a world of illusion!  I don't want to give replies to such prejudiced ideas.

48073 said:

@Christopher

Haha, I did not know. Excellent!

Christopher Stewart said:

« Pauli Effect »

May somebody explain what`s going on?. baseless belief, hahaha. Excellent!. ?????????????????
Taking the examples of   minority of some black sheep in science and thinking that it is an universal phenomenon is not right.

first, who are you  calling  a « black sheep in science »

 

second, i never said anything about this being an universal phenomenon... i just pointed it out as an example to demonstrate the idea of unintentional influence in experiments... 

 

The people who try to influence the results of science are following the path of peudo-science and not real science!

more to the point, as quantum physics clearly reveals, the influence the observer has on the observed is not intentional... in other words, it is not that they are trying to influence the results, it is that they have no choice about it... by the mere act of observation, they influence the results...

 

Saying that others' logic and points are always wrong without trying to understand them properly is also a proof of living in a world of illusion! 

 

 

 

I don't want to give replies to such prejudiced ideas.

 

second, nobody forces you to reply but yourself...

 

 

and for the open minded who are following this thread, here are some interesting quotes about the matter under discussion...

 

« The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment. » - Bernard d'Espagnat (French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, and author)

« Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. » - Niels Bohr (Danish physicist, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922)

« Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it. » - Pascual Jordan (German Theoretical and mathematical physicist)

« The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. » - Werner Heisenberg (German theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932)

« In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it. » - Martin Rees (British cosmologist and astrophysicist)

 

Again quantum mechanics! Talk about the real world as we perceive, Chris!

Please read the article I wrote on this here: http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-o...

In the ambit of the so-called hidden-measurements interpretation of quantum mechanics, the observer-effect can be understood as an instrument effect which results from the combination of the following two aspects: (a) an invasiveness of the measurement process, intrinsically incorporated in its experimental protocol (which therefore cannot be eliminated); (b) the presence of a random mechanism (due to fluctuations in the experimental context) through which a specific measurement-interaction is each time actualized, in a non-predictable (non-controllable) way.

****The observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level  as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.

That "people change things by taking measurements in a lab", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe" is not correct even in the quantum world. It is actually the particle exchange that changes reality. Not our observations. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial. In the classical world changing the results by our observations is completely out of question! Get this right first.

Here I will give an example of my own experience. While I was studying for my M.Sc. final exams with deep concentration ( I always study with such concentration that all that written in the books appear before me in the examination hall and  I don't miss even a single point and that is how I got all top ranks in all my exams!),  a sparrow started flying above me in the room making noises & disturbing my concentration. I got annoyed and looked at the sparrow and said, "Get lost, you are disturbing me!" And as soon as I said those words the sparrow caught in the blades of the running ceiling fan above and  got mauled, its feathers scattering all around me and the sparrow fell before me lying dead! I was shocked and moved by the scene! It haunted me for days. I didn't expect this to happen and I definitely didn't mean it - I cannot do such things to innocent animals knowingly or unknowingly! I only wanted the sparrow to go out and not to disturb me.  People who heard this story said I had paranormal abilities and started fearing me. But I don't believe I have any such abilities.  It was just a coincidence but people attributed several such things to me and some even said I was a Godess and could curse them if they did anything bad to me! I feel all this is rubbish. I definitely don't have any abilities to do things in the way I want if I just only think or say anything about them. But will people listen?! Another example of baseless belief!

What can you say about people like these who attribute things to people that don't really have them?! And take the help of science to explain them? To say that "by the mere act of observation, they influence the results..." is definitely a baseless belief.  Nobody can influence the results of a scientific experiment just by observing it!  Science doesn't accept such unproven beliefs! People  can follow pseudo-science if they want but if they try to influence others by telling stories of children as scientific phenomenon, I definitely have a role here to make people alert even if it has to be done at the cost of people branding me as a close minded person. That is the reason why I am taking pains to make things clear even though i don't want to give replies to some. Art Lab doesn't support pseudo-science or superstitions. Yes, in that way I am definitely prejudiced! And I leave it to members here and all those reading this to think about these things and decide what to believe and what not.

Yes, the quotes of the Physicists are thought provoking. It is not about the quotes, it is the interpretation of them is not straight!

 

The exact science needs evidence, I agree, but the episode of bird that distracts the researcher suggests. If our eco-system, even the beating of wings of a bird can trigger a tsunami at a distance
People who heard this story said I had paranormal abilities and started fearing me. But I don't believe I have any such abilities.  It was just a coincidence


whether or not it was a coincidence is not a fact, it's only an interpretation, a rationalization... it is as valid an interpretation as that of those who believe that you have paranormal abilities... the two interpretations merely reflect the respective belief systems of those who make them, but in no way are they representative of evidence, or fact... they are merely opinions...

 

the facts are : Krishna got distracted by the bird, Krishna said something to the bird, and then the bird got killed in the fan, and then Krishna was shocked and moved by the sad event... 

 

to affirm that there was no connection between the words said to the bird and what happened to the bird is not stating a fact, it's merely stating a baseless belief...

 

To say that "by the mere act of observation, they influence the results..." is definitely a baseless belief.  Nobody can influence the results of a scientific experiment just by observing it! Science doesn't accept such unproven beliefs!

 

it is a fact that, on the contrary, this is widely accepted in the world of science... quantum physics has clearly demonstrated this... it is not possible to avoid influencing the results of a scientific experiment during the observation... it's automatic, it's part of the process... in other words, what is being observed is never independent of the consciousness which observes it, nor is it independent of the circumstances of the experiment... the observed is never an independent entity in itself, but rather, the observation tells us something about the whole, which comprises observer + observed + conditions in which the observation is made...

 

 

I definitely have a role here to make people alert even if it has to be done at the cost of people branding me as a close minded person.

 

if it is indeed your role here, it implies that you actually take the time to inquire seriously about what is being generously offered so as to ascertain whether it is true or not... and not just reject it

 



 

 

And I leave it to members here and all those reading this to think about these things and decide what to believe and what not

 

 

have a good day folks ! :o)

RSS

© 2017   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service