It’s no secret that I’m no fan of P Z Myers. In fact, I think he’s a bit of a drongo (as the shackle-draggers might have it). So it’s a bit of a shock to find myself agreeing with him.
As I implied previously, I don’t do science because it’s useful, or important. I do science because I find it beautiful. I’m not just talking about pretty pictures of cells or protein structures, although I’ve posted enough of those around the place.
Finding out how things work, how the natural world fits together. It is important, and it is beautiful—even if we’re not trying to cure a disease or invent a more efficient jet engine. Just because it’s there, because we’re part of it: because just like art and music and literature it’s part of what makes us human.
“I could say science is beautiful because it’s looking into the mind of God, but that would merely be a deliberate attempt to piss off Myers (and Turnpenny) so I shan’t.”
Richard, you could say that with no argument from anyone, as long as you say that that is why science is beautiful to you. There may be as many reasons why science is beautiful as there are scientists, or indeed definitions of god(s).
@Cath: no, you really couldn’t. If you mention religion you’ll get an argument from Myers: that’s his whole schtick.
@Richard: I do science because it works. It’s a way of investigating and manipulating the world that’s proven capable of generating practical outcomes. That it’s beautiful is a perq, to my mind. :-)
I read Pharyngula pretty much every day, and I can’t remember seeing PZ attack anyone who keeps their religion to themselves and doesn’t seek to impose their beliefs on others. (That’s obviously not what Richard was doing in his post, but saying that “science is beautiful because it’s looking into the mind of God” is making a fact out of something that is nothing more – or less – than his personal opinion).
I don’t agree with PZ either, and I’m bigger than he is. Actually, I am bigger than you and he put together. So there. Now, did someone say something about truth and beauty or some such pansified drivel? Effete lad-di-da pommie-bastard nonsense. That’s what it is.
Step outside and say that, Gee.
but he is virulent towards anyone who dares to suggest that faith isn’t just a personal matter. Which is hypocrisy of the highest order.
“but he is virulent towards anyone who dares to suggest that faith isn’t just a personal matter. Which is hypocrisy of the highest order.”
Yes. That. Thank you.
I like to think I’m not generally obnoxious about my faith, but equating it to nothing more – or less – than a personal opinion? Cath, I adore you, but that’s quite offensive.
And though I currently work for a company that is busy trying to cure diseases and invent a more efficient jet engine, there is an undeniable beauty about science in all its forms that stands apart from any application.
Katie, I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone, and I’m sorry if it came across like that. I didn’t say that Richard’s faith is his personal opinion. But I do think that saying “science is beautiful because (insert reason here)” is an opinion. Richard’s reason does not match my own, hence my wish that he had qualified his statement by saying “for me”, rather than implying that his reason is a universal constant that applies to everyone.
I don’t know what I would call someone’s faith, or lack thereof – opinion? feeling? experience? world-view? Whatever it is, it’s personal, though ;)
No Cath, I’m sorry. It is a universal truth.
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not, so until I find out I will simply ask you for your definition of universal!
This discussion is like a philosophy argumentation assignment. I see what’s happening, but I’m just going to follow it for a while before saying geeky things about premises.
LOL! Eva discovers a way to stop internet arguments dead: threaten imminent disclosure of superior knowledge of philosophy!
It’s all good!
Haha. No, it got kind of stuck regardless, that’s what was so intriguing. I might do a blog post on it (where “it” is quite a general thing about discussions) at some point, ‘cause there’s an interesting epistemological issue here (neerrrrrrd).
Do you think that’s because here on NN we’re all too polite? Or that we couldn’t argue our way out of a paper bag?
The famous NN politeness actually does have something to do with it in that it didn’t revert into pointless name-calling at the point where it got stuck. But the argumentation was fine, on both sides.
Thank you for the green light, Eva.
Anyway, I was only half-joking about the ‘universal’. Science is beautiful. The whole process of observation, hypothesis, experiment is a wondrous thing. Being able to take apart the natural world and put it back together again, to find out how stuff works, resonates deep within us. It’s a very human thing.
Children understand this, even if they can’t articulate it as beauty. Every child I know has wanted to know ‘why’, to the point of frustration!
‘Beauty’ might well be a subjective thing, but I’m claiming it’s more than personal. In much the same way as a sunset or Beethoven’s Ninth is beautiful (and perhaps made more beautiful by understanding why it is so). Science is art.
My personal view is that I would not do it if it wasn’t beautiful. The utilitarian argument (sorry, JB) has always been somewhat specious.
I have no argument at all with science being beautiful. It has an elegance and logic that strongly appeal to me. I actually don’t know why though. I don’t know why green is my favourite colour, either, or why mountains are more beautiful than buildings, or why I like certain kinds of music more than others.
“sorry, JB”
I remembered our new NN member while I was being a philosophy snob. Heh. I don’t pretend to compete with him, of course. But I do find him useful, sometimes, when I’m not sure about things, but usually only when it’s in my favour.
Isn’t that the definition of a philosophical argument, Eva?
Heh. Probably, yeah.
I can’t remember seeing PZ attack anyone who keeps their religion to themselves
Except that for Myers, so much as mentioning faith without heaping scorn upon it is tantamount to reinstating the Inquisition.
(Obdisclosure: I’m an atheist.)
I wasn’t expecting the (Spanish) Inquisition!
Yes. That doesn’t really lend itself to helpful dialogue (as I’ve touched on elsewhere.
I am brewing a couple of posts about this. Maybe on the plane.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
You two…
stop it
OK, I’m outside now. And I’m saying ‘it’. Whatever ‘it’ is. But no … where is everyone? Ah, I get it, you’re all inside, several miles up Richard’s colon with a comfy chair, a standard lamp and a good book.
Bloody lonely, out here.
Nice shrubbery, though.
*gasp * Not….the COMFY CHAIR!
@Katie: not wanting to offend, but what is faith if not a personal opinion shared (or not, depending) with a certain number of other people?
I know that what I would qualify as the disincarnate object of belief, others would qualify as an incarnate representation of truth. But one’s faith itself is personal and subjective, isn’t it?
@Richard, I would contend that beauty is also subjective. But I do agree that science is an art – and art, whether or not one finds it beautiful – describes human endeavors to understand truth. Others have long used art to describe an equation between truth and beauty, and I suspect we are unlikely to resolve the debate even if it devolves to name-calling. You half-Henry, you.
@Henry, not a fan of “Moulin Rouge”![]()
? What about those nice red uniforms?
The problem with a justification for doing science based exclusively on its “beauty” is that, since we all agree that this is deeply subjective, how do we use that as an argument to get funded? People may as well say: “OK, you find it beautiful, then pay for it from your own pocket”. Should we then go back to the times where only appropriately wealthy Victorian gentlemen could afford to be at the bench?
One might say that faith could be defined as a personal opinion because it is a sentiment that not everyone shares. I don’t think that’s offensive. Or is the problem that ‘opinion’ implies it’s a conscious choice whereas faith might feel more innate to those who have it?
a bit of a drongo (as the shackle-draggers might have it)
Poor little dicrurids … why do they get picked upon for Oz slang?
@Cristian – Are you implying that the current system of science funding isn’t subjective?
I’m with Richard here, I’m involved in science because of the elegant way it fits together, even though it rarely does fit together completely. Sure there are practical spin-offs that allow us to support our habit, but they aren’t the goal.
We aren’t engineers!
That is just the same with more obviously artistic endeavours. Never forget that Britain’s greatest ever composer played second trombone in a tea-dance orchestra at the end of Cromer Pier to put food on the table.
Who is JB?
As I pressed “submit”, I remembered, sorry – Jeremy Bentham for those like me who don’t like codes (or in-jokes).
Chris, I actually prefer the bits and pieces where science doesn’t fit together at all. They might be indicative of something completely new, new theories, an entirely new universe awaiting (perhaps, literally…)
@ Chris – I am intrigued.
Never forget that Britain’s greatest ever composer played second trombone in a tea-dance orchestra at the end of Cromer Pier to put food on the table.
Who? Or, more to the point, whom?
I actually prefer the bits and pieces where science doesn’t fit
Yeah, me too, sort of. But that’s because they show that we haven’t put the puzzle together right. Those pieces don’t fit yet, which is where the excitement comes in.
@ Henry – If you don’t know, I’m not telling you.
@ Richard – my serious views on this topic are expressed elsewhere as these margins are too narrow to contain them.
@ Chris – Elgar?
I could say a lot about this but it’s half past 3 in the morning my time and I’m at Changi airport with another 9 hours until my flight. Blah.
Well, at least you have a
decentindecent book to read.yes, indeed. Something by some cove called ‘Gee’, too.
I completely take your point about science being a beautiful activity and adding, rather than subtracting, to the beauty of our understanding of the world around us. But not your apparent rejection of the utilitarian value of science. Specious? I disagree.
An erudite Irishman once stated that “All art is useless” and while I would agree that there is some artisty involved in doing science, i.e. skill, it can easily be distinguished from Art, because it is useful.
For me the potential utility of science is a boon and an important motivation. I could not spend my years following some abstruse avenue of physical or mathematical theory, however beautiful the potential result. I’ve always wanted to be involved in projects that at least had the potential to deliver results that might make a difference to people’s lives. That’s not to say that I’m a total devotee of applied science. I fully appreciate the value of fundamental research and a lot of my work falls into that category.
The beauty of science perhaps lies in its intellectual stimulation – not immediately utilitarian, and neither quite the same thing as art.
I think if we’re doing stuff just because it’s useful then we’re missing out.
{Struggles not to say something about ultimately futile}
{fails}
On the subject of faith as a personal opinion.
I’ve been thinking about this over the weekend, and I can understand the problem that some may have with the idea that faith is an opinion. Whether I like red or green more is an opinion, but my personal beliefs on the nature of the universe is far more than a binary state.
Put it another way. I go window shopping and I dismiss several shops on the basis of being ‘just another chocolate shop’ or similar. What I don’t always notice is that the shop is the lifestyle, livelihood and very existence of the shop owner. Faith is a lifestyle choice, and question of existence, and that makes it a great deal more than merely a personal opinion.
On science and beauty…well, isn’t that all a matter of opinion? Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all. I’m with Stephen – I prefer that things are useful and worthy of many late nights at the bench. If they are also beautiful then I should consider myself especially lucky.
Katherine, I like your explanation and perspective – thank you! Along the same lines I would like to say though that calling one’s religious beliefs a ‘universal truth’ might imply that it’s something those who don’t believe just ’can’t see’ for whatever reason – which of course those of us who don’t would object to.
Concerning beauty and usefulness of science.. well, I happen to spend most of my time in and with one of those ‘will not save or have an immediately obvious value for the well-being of humankind anytime soon’ subject areas. In my mind, all things natural are worthy of discovery – beautiful or not!
Well, in fact since it is next to impossible to predict which particular line of research are going to result in something useful, there is no point in going through every single one of them to justify it using usefulness as criterium. What I do think is that to justify doing science in general, we need to resort to something else besides just saying that “it’s beautiful, and that’s justification enough”. I might find it beautiful sometimes (frustrating and irritating other times) , but since as a society we invest a lot of resources in doing science, we might want to convince non-scientist that it’s something worth investing in, even if they don’t particularly care for how beautiful it may be.
Just a thought…
Why? We invest money in art and things, just because they’re meant to be things that a grown-up society does. Surely ‘wasting’ resources on science doesn’t need any further justification. The use that comes out of it (and let’s face it, you have to do a shedload of basic research before you get any practical application. I wonder if the sums add up).
Agree that practical applications only come now and then after spending a LOT of money on basic research, but that’s how it is: progress is expensive, and the more we want to know, the more expensive it gets. However, the alternative (no funding for basic research) gives us exactly ZERO practical applications (well, except for those that we may stumble upon just by chance)
The problem with public funding is that it is limited, and therefore there is competition between areas to see which one gets a better piece of the cake. If we researchers can only come up with a “give us funding because science is, you know, kind of beautiful” (And I DO agree that it is, don’t get me wrong), then I can see how people may argue that that money would be better spent on social programs, security, infraestructure development and that sort of things that give a more immediate return to society
(the same goes for public-funded art programs, of course)
Richard
I’m glad I could help. I’ll see if I can remember some more for you.
Wassat Nat? Sorry, being away does terrible things to my internet discussion-following phenotype.
Further useful phrases for dealing with Australians.
Beer this week? We can compare jetlag.
Ah…
yes. Beer is good. But some of the pissy yellow stuff they sell round these parts will have to do.