On 25/6/2009, "Simon Biggs" <s.bi...@eca.ac.uk> wrote: >recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not >foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody >has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be >undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâs have done it. It often >leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists.
I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
