RE: 'he accuracy of retrofitting human imagery as art is probably as weak as retrofitting practical observations as science. It doesn't much matter what you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and science are recent divisions of the subjective-objective conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700.'
So you don't think the Lascaux caves are art in our current acceptation of the term? DA On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See below. Is that really right? Using a scientific > method to infer a general law of nature by means of a > hypothesis, observation, and measurement of some event > that can be duplicated by objective repetition is > fairly new, 17C. Empirical observations and > measurements, "applied science" has a long history, at > least from Aristotle. Magic has a played a big role > in science. A great book is Wonder and the Order of > Nature, by Lorraine Dalston and Katherine Park. It > traces the development of examining nature from > superstition to science, 1150 to 1750. Almost any of > Barbara Stafford's books are also good for discussions > of how science emerged from magic and superstition. > > > The accuracy of retrofitting human imagery as art is > probably as weak as retrofitting practical > observations as science. It doesn't much matter what > you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and science are > recent divisions of the subjective-objective > conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700. > > Of course we don't know what the Chinese were doing > when we weren't looking. > > WC > > After all, a > > large number of > > knowledges from all those cultures are among that > > which we regularly > > call science. > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > > Michael Brady > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Derek Allan
