jtk Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 RIP Edward Lorenz. Like Freud, he would have marveled that some of us think we're non-participants in our images. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/ts_alt_afp/ussciencelorenz_080417144725 The idea that something we see causes forefingers to twitch, rendering images, might have made Lorenz, and even Freud, giggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 A great man. The fluttering butterfly wings and his chaos theory may be applicable to photography. I know that many of my own photographs seem chaotic. Not sure the butterfly wings theory is applicable, but maybe the photographer's forefingers twitch as a result of a feeling of "butterflies in the stomach". Perhaps that is a photographer's feeling that is only really applicable to war photographers in the heat of action, or to those who are first experiencing attractive models before their lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aginbyte Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 In honor of Mr. L, I submit this photo by Kah Kit Yoong, amazing for its capture of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5880114">Lorenz attractors</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I marvel at the arrogant assertions of the scientific community. We have forgotten that a theory is a THEORY ... and while entertaining, likely filled with "truths", and worthy of exploration ... can and should never be associated with the error of being considered fact. Evolution, Chaos, Relativity, Quantum Mechantics ... having some mathematical and scientific reality are being taught as reality ... when science by its very definition would deny a theory as fact or truth. I bring this up, because art, spirit, religion, music, etc... may be every bit (or more) the truth whithe we poor humans simply lacking the correct "measuring device". I guess I'm on record now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 There's a difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common usage. Evolution is not conjecture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson I agree that art can have as much truth as science. Art can also be a fantasy. I don't think there's anything wrong with fantasy unless it's used to start wars or as an excuse to exclude or hate other people. Human imagination can soar to great heights. It can also sink to the depths. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Try jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Though not a truly scientific experiment or proof, you'll soon learn which kind of theory Gravity is. It's just that gravity is more palatable because it doesn't fly in the face of our collective fantasies about the creation of the world. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 A scientific theory is simply a testable model. A true scientist would/should never state that a theory is the way that anything actually is ... simply that the preponderance of the evedence is supportive of that theory versus another. For example, evolutionary theory is on extremely shaky ground concerning origins and macro-evolution ... while having some good supportive evidence of micro-evolution. Problems arrise that people see Evolution theory as a "whole" ... and treat as fact even the shakier areas. Should it shake your understanding that gravity on rare occassions doesn't behave in it's usual way? It shouldn't, because gravitational theory is simply suggesting a model. It so happens that gravity is pretty reliable ... but how about how a patient will respond to a drug? Science & theory still the same, simply a less reliable result. This is on areas where we have decent tools to measure. But, what if I wanted to measure whether you "Love" deeper than someone else, whether God is real, whether a photo is "art" ... science cannot help us here ... but some thi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Many current thinkers believe that all "truth" and "facts" are a matter of webs of coherent theories and agreement. I'm fine with that and have been a proponent of it at times. As long as I know that rational beings can tell the difference between the theory of evolution and the story of the garden of eden and that my children are taught one in school and the other in synagogue. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 A much deeper discussion will likely get off the Photography topic requirement. Suffice to say that the moment that evolution "earns" the right to be the only viable theory of origins and development ... is the moment it is no longer science. Think about global warming. I won't take a position here ... but what has happened is a "highjacking" of the discussion about the environment. Scholars (who mind you have $$$, fame, etc... influencing them) have decided that anyone even mentioning that the data is less "solid" is branded a lunatic. Well, that isn't science anymore, its a proof. I seem to rememebr a looming ice age not that long ago. I'm a proponent of discussion. But the moment you incorrectly rule out something as a possibility, you can no longer have meaningful discussion. A scientist will often rule out that which he cannot measure ... many of us realize that that leaves an opening for an answer that we don't expect ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Exceptions to rules and laws such as gravity often serve as much to prove those rules and laws as they do to undermine them. I'm sure there are many instances in which gravity doesn't behave as expected. I still wouldn't jump from the bridge without assuming certain consequences. Would you? We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 No one on this thread mentioned anything about the absoluteness of science or any particular theory as the only viable one. You're the one who brought up supposed arrogant scientists who claim that theories are the way things are. The article talked about a scientist dying who revolutionized 20th century science with a theory. It was a pretty neutral article that didn't take a stand on Lorenz's work. You are the one who seemed to bring an agenda to this table. You say, "A scientist will often rule out that which he cannot measure . . ." Does that apply to Lorenz. If not, why bring it up. If so, give us examples regarding Chaos Theory. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I was addressing the article's presumption more ... the presumption of chaos theory as a discovery, rather than a model. It is the perception of inherent truth that gets my guard up. So, you are a proponent of the influence of the artist on the world ... does a shutter motion in America today cause a tornado in Africa next week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 was less revolutionary (more practical). In essence, Lorenz discovered what most mathetmaticians would have told you as their inherent experience with precision ... that if you multiply .222 by itself 10,000 times you will get a substantially different number that if you multiply .2222 the same way. Deviate from your course by 1 degree over 1 mile, your likely OK ... do the same for 1000 miles ... you are probably lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aginbyte Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I think Lorenz' discovery was the underlying order in a seemingly chaotic system or set. And the subsequent mathematics was a way of expressing this order. It seems that the theory found a way to describe that which was discovered, the underlying order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 "So, you are a proponent of the influence of the artist on the world" Yes. "does a shutter motion in America today cause a tornado in Africa next week?" No. I try to stay away from arguments from the extreme, although I'm sure I've been guilty of it. Because "facts" may be coherent rather than directly corresponding to reality and because "facts" or "theories" may have exceptions, a degree of uncertainty, or may come to be proven false doesn't make all facts and all theories untrustworthy, bogus, or in any meaningful way similar to things like art and religion, which may speak certain kinds of truths as well. The truths of art are esthetic and the truths of religion are grounded in faith. I never understand why religion would be brought up within the context of science. Faith is a matter transcending science, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. I think comparing religious matters to matters of science does a disservice to religious matters. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 In many ways it was a "model" for describing inherent error in science and math. To me, who does not place full "faith" in science, it's a logical conclusion. For instance, physics has a great group of science for gravity and other very reproducable things. You can bank on gravity almost every time, as Fred has mentioned. What Lorenz was describing is the 99% of eveything else science addresses (Medicine, weather, economy, politics, war, etc...). What he was partially saying is that there is a predicatble wrongness to events. It's easier to attribute wrongness to the possible unique uniting of many small effects from "butterflys wings", than to suggest that maybe ... just maybe ... there is an influence beyond us that would also explain why man is often wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 from my online dictionary. faith: belief that is not based on proof science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. "faith in science" is a cute turn of phrase, but that's about all it is. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 We are faith based in all decisions Fred. Lorenz helps to show that there is inherent chaos or unpredictability in life. Yet, we hurl ourselves about the globe in multi-ton hulls of metal anyway, expect the lights to come on when we click a button, and take the pill when we are sick. The moment a plane falls from the sky, a blackout occurs, or a loved one dies from a drug allergy ... we are suprised, pi$$ed, and ready to sue ... our faith has been trasgressed. Yet, chaos theory would suggest that all of these things are appropriate outcomes in predictably unpredictable world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 "We are faith based in all decisions Fred." I think that misrepresents both faith and decision making. A plane falling from the sky doesn't transgress my faith, it disappoints my expectations. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Faith can also be defined as acting upon what you cannot see or foreknow. I think every decision is based upon some faith (expectation is an extension of your faith, and dissapointment/resentment created by your broken expectation). You have faith that boats float ... so, "All Aboard". It may be because of your knowledge of boyancy physics, your personal anecdotal experience with boating, or because your Dad raised you with the teaching that boats are a reliable transport. What you don't know is ... will this boat float on this day. It takes some faith to step on ... watch those who refuse to boat, fly, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Is an emotionally charged word for some. People are funny about unpredictability and decision making. the same person who flies on a plane because "most planes fly safely" will also place money on the lottery believing that the odds, this time, don't apply to them. We is funny people. I'm done musing for a bit ... but you always stike up a good conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Thanks, Thomas, I leave you with this thought: Most people fly on a plane to get from point A to point B. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave wyman Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Thomas, I marvel at the possibility you believe your assertion that appears to indict the "scientific community" in general. Do you have proof of this assertion? >I marvel at the arrogant assertions of the scientific community. < What might be an example of an arrogant scientific assertion, and in fact, what constitutes your definition of both arrogant and an assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltpmd Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Scientific Community: those who adhere to any theory accepted widely, simply based upon majority community acceptance (not unlike artists who accept crap as art, simply based upon general community acceptance). Arrogant: exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth. Assertion: a declaration. It is an exagerated declaration of worth that any scientific theory is a discovery of any truth (the asertion of the article). I quite like the chaos theory, but if you offer substantive opposition, I am all ears. It is arrogant to think that one scientific theory is a discovery of truth, versus simply a working model to understand truth. If the uncorrupt evidence disproves what I believe, I will aboandon it. The politically correct arument means nothing to me ... unless it is supported by the full evidence of un-motivated study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince_smith2 Posted April 19, 2008 Share Posted April 19, 2008 "It is an exagerated declaration of worth that any scientific theory is a discovery of any truth (the asertion of the article)." Does this apply to religous theories as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now