Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: OT: Science, art, progress, humbug
From: George Lottermoser <imagist@concentric.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:00:51 -0500

barney@ncep.noaa.gov (Barney Quinn)6/30/017:27 AM

> New techniques are discovered.
> Newer, more accurate information comes to light. Old things
long lost are found. 

I humbly ask, do not science and art (music, literature, visual
objects, et al) rely entirely on discovery through hypothesis,
test, proof? And if so, it would seem both have a history of
discovery.

> 
> I would argue that  it was progress when we abandonned the
notion that infection was

As in so many discussions like this, terms make the difference in
understanding and beliefs:

progress n.
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: pupils who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a
believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her
realm.

‹progress 
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a
rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily:
as technology progresses.

‹idiom.
in progress.
Going on; under way: artistic works that are in progress.

> progress are also one of the things which make art and science
different. I don't

I would suggest that the big difference between science and art
lies in usefulness and social function. And further that some
scientific "progress" (meaning new discoveries) results in social
and/or cultural regress (examples: DDT, weapons, etc.).

George