In science the goal is to take the self out of the judgment and to simply understand the data, the results, the evidence, the matter, etc. That's why it's science --the scientific method -- and why it's objective. It's admitted that it is not possible, probably, to exclude all subjectivity. So while art and science share the human subject in some way, the former tries to eliminate self as much as possible and the latter tries to include it as much as possible. Granted that when it comes to intrepretation, appreciation, and the like, art and science are regarded subjectively.
WC --- Frances Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frances to William and members... > > > > William partly wrote in effect that it is wrong to > compare and apply the > methods of scientific investigation to the means of > artistic judgement. > Science he feels must test things objectively, > according to an observable > and repeatable process. In seeking scientific > proofs, the goal he says is to > discover whether separate investigators can arrive > at identical results > using similar methods. For him it is wrong to think > that a work can be > "proven" as artistic in this same way, by simply > having a group of different > people observe the work, because there is nothing > objective about this way > of determination. > > > > For any thinker to hold that the arts must be > approached and broached by the > exclusive means of science and its logical methods > is agreeably to overstate > the process of determination. To dismiss the methods > of science however as > inconsistent or incompatible with the means of > judging art in order to > justly prove something of an object is to wrongly > isolate art from science. > What art and science have in common is humanity, and > all humans think in > much the same ways by the same means, therefore the > judgements used to > determine objects of art or science will be similar > and identical. To feel > the beauty of logics or its mathematic forms is no > different than to know > the truth of aesthetics or its artistic forms. > > > > Pragmatism posits that the arts are preparatory and > contributory to the > sciences, and that aesthetics is preparatory and > contributory to logics; and > in turn that the sciences are consummatory of the > arts, and that logics is > consummatory of aesthetics; and furthermore that in > the process of any > research they are all combinatory; which seems to be > a very wise approach. > It provides for a search that is pluralistic and > normative and fallible, and > it is applicable to both art and science. The search > for artistic status in > objects, or for say beauty in art or for truth in > science, after all > requires essentially the same probing act of mind. > > > > When ordinary objects are thought or known as > samples of science, it seems > to be mainly by the means of objective arguments > made by groups of communal > peoples. When ordinary objects are felt or found as > works of art, it seems > to be mainly by the means of subjective judgements > made by groups of > individual persons. The peoples and persons are both > groups, and the > arguments and judgements are both determinations > made by those groups. The > logical methods of science entail research that > starts with curiosity and > moves into inquiry and ends with discovery. Samples > are selected to be > tested with tools in labs. The search is to find > some global truth about the > samples. The logical method of inquiry is empirical > and entails at least > experiential observation, and at most experimental > operation via > instrumental investigation and even utile > examination or dissection. If > separate scientists arrive at identical conclusions > using the same means > then some conclusive results might be agreed to. > The results of tested > samples may offer some accepted proof of truth. If > results ever could be > found true, then they probably will be eventually, > regardless of whether > they ever actually will be. It is the search and > goal that is important, and > not the end, which finality is not attainable in any > event due to the > determining limits of evolution. The truth therefore > ought to be what any > collective community of learned experts will > tentatively agree on by a > consensus of reasonable opinion. The pivotal process > here is mainly > inductive and empirical, yet it can clearly serve > the acts of both art and > science adequately.
