Non-overlapping magesteria

[wiploc]

And what would those numbers say about the nature of beauty?

Suppose I hypothesized that round faces are more beautiful than other shapes. Suppose, then, I devised and executed an experiment testing that hypothesis. Suppose I showed photographs of faces to thousands of people around the world, and found no significant correlation between basic face shape and perceived beauty.

That would be a scientific fact about beauty.

Or suppose you gave it as your opinion that there are no scientific facts about beauty. That would be self refuting. Unless, that is, your claim was merely religious, having nothing to do with science.

But you could hardly make a claim about science that didn't bear on science.

[Exian]

Sexual selection would explain a lot about what we find beautiful in each other, and from there I don't think it would be hard to see why we find paintings or buildings or landscapes to be beautiful or captivating in some sense.

Differing opinion is just variety for survival. We can't all bang Kate Upton. Well...

[Anomalocaris]

I'm really fed up with this idea that there is a domain of enquiry "beyond science".

Just stop it already. Thanks.

What is beauty? Is that inquiry susceptible to the scientific method?

Yes.

In principle, one could trace the entire detailed evolutionary history of the perception of beauty, and the environmental influences upon the individuals at the end of the evolution, and thus identify how and why of every instances of perception of beauty scientifically.

[watchamadoodle]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...131109.htm

Thanks for the penguin story. It's interesting how much we are learning about taste in just the past few years - effects of temperature, various types of tastebuds, etc. I would hate to be a chef trying to keep up.

---

Even if religion could make claims that are impossible to question, science could study the effect of that religion on society and individuals. For example, money might be wasted on churches, "sinful" people might be slandered, children might be taught to fear silly things, believers might be encouraged to make fools of themselves, etc.

[emilynghiem]

What's the difference between this and just making stuff up?

Hi Rob
What I find fascinating is that our tangible systems of defining laws and relations in the world run "parallel" with the religious systems that use more abstract symbols for collective concepts and relationships.

So if you try to "make things up" that are not consistent, they are not going to mesh with the rest. There is an order to things. What happens locally is a reflection or microcosm of what happens globally (and that's what religions try to represent -- the collective level so it uses symbols).

That's where we use science or logic to weed out where we recognize conflicts, and work these out to make sure all things are consistent.

We use the science and secular system to check against the things people are expressing and enforcing using faith-based symbology (like variables expressing RELATIONSHIPS or laws); and vice versa, if faith based perspectives catch something being assumed or missed on the logic/science level, then this is pointed out, and that conflict has to be reconciled with both standards to be consistent.

These systems check and balance each other, like bass and treble.

What is truly universal can thus be expressed interchangeably,
either using the faith-based religious symbols for these relationships,
or the science and real-world examples that reflect these patterns.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Art must have goals and those goals can be measured. For example, some music is designed to be relaxing. Other music is designed to be cathartic. The "Piss Christ" was designed to communicate the artist's feelings about Christianity (I assume). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ )

And what of art created solely to express the artist's inner feelings? How do you measure that?

Science can measure the wavelengths of the golds in Wheat Field with Crows -- but can it take measure of the desperation of a suicidal artist?

---

Yes.

In principle, one could trace the entire detailed evolutionary history of the perception of beauty, and the environmental influences upon the individuals at the end of the evolution, and thus identify how and why of every instances of perception of beauty scientifically.

I disagree. Demonstrate your point.

[watchamadoodle]

What is truly universal can thus be expressed interchangeably,
either using the faith-based religious symbols for these relationships,
or the science and real-world examples that reflect these patterns.

That's interesting. Many of the creation stories have a battle between Order and Chaos (like Yahweh and Leviathan). The god of Order chopped-up the god of Chaos to construct the universe. So it reminds me of the randomness we see at the quantum level. It's neat that ancient people developed a myth is still meaningful today.

On the other hand, science already has equations. Why do we need religious symbolism and myths (except for their charm)?

---

And what of art created solely to express the artist's inner feelings? How do you measure that?

Science can measure the wavelengths of the golds in Wheat Field with Crows -- but can it take measure of the desperation of a suicidal artist?

We need to know the feelings of the artist. Maybe we can guess the artist's feelings from his/her history. Maybe the artist will even tell us the feelings that motivated the artwork. Then we simply question people as they experience the artwork to get their reaction. Also we can measure the level of fascination too. If a person gets the message and yawns, then that isn't good art IMO.

[The Reality Salesman01]

What is beauty? Is that inquiry susceptible to the scientific method?

Yes, in that we can discover why it is that certain standards for beauty, or cuteness, or any other attribute of appearance, based on our evolutionary lineage and psychology, and create a rough metric from that. It's not going to be perfect, but then, what is?

Why is it that these people only find it worthwhile to ask questions like these about pleasant sensible experiences. Why don't they seek the smell of shit in its purest sense? Why is it that "itchy balls" are not ever searched for In any platonic form sense? Theists seem to suffer from an extreme prejudice with regards to descriptive experiences.

[emilynghiem]

[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='877742' dateline='1424226308']

And what of art created solely to express the artist's inner feelings? How do you measure that?

Science can measure the wavelengths of the golds in Wheat Field with Crows -- but can it take measure of the desperation of a suicidal artist?

---

I would ask the artists to express their thought process
when they created their art.

If you want to quantify it, what about the stages of grief and recovery,
and asking if the mood or the purpose of expression was anger, depression, denial and projection, resolution, peace, etc.

Could it be classified in terms of conflict:
man vs man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, man vs. machine, etc.
individual vs. parent, individual vs partner, individual vs. institution,
individual vs. inner struggle or identity, individual vs. authority
individual vs. collective society/humanity, etc.

I used to think this was pure craziness, after sitting through an "Art History" class where the professor swore that art originated from
expressing religious themes of either SEX or DEATH (eros or thanatos)
and kept showing the repetitive themes.

I would expand on that same concept and find common patterns.
And instead of theorizing what art means, why not ask the artists.

There are only so many themes or stories, patterns of conflicts or processes/stages. Surely these can be categorized if you were as crazed about it as art historians and critics trying to analyze everything...

---

[quote='watchamadoodle' pid='877760' dateline='1424227282']

On the other hand, science already has equations. Why do we need religious symbolism and myths (except for their charm)?

---

Hi watchamadoodle

^ Some people relate to their ways better, like their cultural identity. ^
(My mother didn't understand forgiveness in Christian terms, but when a Buddhist monk explained it in terms of equal compassion for all people,
whether they treat you good or bad, then she understood the concept indirectly and agreed to it, since that is her native system and how she thinks)
Also, one system may miss some things that another describes better.
Like how some language has such a perfect phrase for something
(ex: deja vu in French) that everyone borrows that and adopts it.

Buddhism teaches compassion on a broader level than just neighborly relations, so it has benefits in teaching respect for all life on the planet.
I like the term "karma" better than "sin" because karma is clearly situational, while sin can sound too judgmental in blaming people.

Christianity is more specific on how to address trespasses between neighbors and focus on human relations specifically. (And Constitutionalism addresses political relations and process.)
Different people and audiences respond to different approaches.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes.

In principle, one could trace the entire detailed evolutionary history of the perception of beauty, and the environmental influences upon the individuals at the end of the evolution, and thus identify how and why of every instances of perception of beauty scientifically.

I disagree. Demonstrate your point.

Beauty exists as a perception facilitated by a combination of genetic and experience based neurology.

Therefore complete description of any instance of perception of beauty must be encompassed by a fundamental description of the mechansim and behavior of the specific instance of the Neurology that facilitated it.