Are artists attention seekers?

You must be joking. If what you say is true then pretty much every single thing is art.

It's still science when it's a hypothesis/idea. It isn't just mere imagination at that stage - the ideas must have at least some scientific merit to be considered plausible. It's the product of research rather than something that's just been "dreamed up", which is why I wouldn't consider it art.

I'm sorry, but a hypothesis is not science. A hypothesis is merely an assumption.

Oxford Dictionary Definition,

1.) A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_rn=9&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=Ysf5W0OUQ0Vx-ha58-wpDg&suggest=p&pq=hypothesis&cp=12&gs_id=3a&xhr=t&q=hypothesis+definition&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=hypothesis+d&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45373924,d.d2k&fp=8af453b18e2f5988&biw=1092&bih=533

Regards,

L.

Yes, but we're referring specifically to scientific hypotheses here.

Science cannot exist without imagination.
Science exists.
Thus,
imagination exists.

Art is irrelevant here unless you can show me that art and imagination are the same thing.

There's no such thing as a "scientific hypothesis" that's what I'm trying to say. Once you verify a "scientific hypothesis" as you call it or a scientific idea as I'd call it, then it isn't a hypothesis/idea any more it's a theory (which is science).

A hypothesis - scientific, artistic, linguistic or philosophical is an axiom, a starting point - nothing more. You don't need "evidence" to convey a hypothesis; you do however need evidence for a hypothesis to become what is known as a scientific theory.

Science can only be science until such ideas are verified. It then becomes a Scientific Theory.

Theories and Hypothesis are very different terms in the realm of science.

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsis/
Noun

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

I suggest you try looking at the google link you yourself posted.

Books have changed the world, be it The Bible or The Origin of Species....but art has not.

Science has practical uses. Art does not. So if the scientific invention becomes famous is generally because it is useful. Artists can't say the same though.

so true :L


Posted from TSR Mobile

I used proposition 2 as the definition of hypothesis in this sense since we're talking about science.

If you would rather call it "the darwinian scientific hypothesis" of natural selection, rather than the theory of natural selection then that's up to you, but it's the wrong terminology.

A scientific hypothesis is an "educated guess" of what happens, but an educated guess isn't proof. Science deals with evidence, not guesses, but an educated guess is the starting point of a scientific evidence but not a proof in and of itself.

By the way scientific hypotheses are made all the time, it's just that very few of them become a theory.

if you believe you need evidence to convey a scientific hypothesis then that's up to you I won't be able to persuade you otherwise, but Charles Darwin had absolutely no evidence when he postulated his theory on natural selection and was actually laughed at for his claims - a hundred or so years later it's now one of the greatest discoveries in science.

He made a hypothesis with no evidence to work with in his time, unless you count nature herself and a fantastically gifted imagination.

I repeat, you do NOT need evidence to give a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea / assumption / guess. That's the facts.

It's still science when it's a hypothesis/idea. It isn't just mere imagination at that stage - the ideas must have at least some scientific merit to be considered plausible. It's the product of research rather than something that's just been "dreamed up", which is why I wouldn't consider it art.

Science has practical uses. Art does not. So if the scientific invention becomes famous is generally because it is useful. Artists can't say the same though.

Here is my post that you quoted:



I don't recall saying you actually needed evidence to convey a scientific hypothesis, or that it must be proven. If I have, please quote me where I said that. I haven't even implied anything of the sort, so please cut the straw man arguments. I just said that it must have some scientific merit - it is a guess, but it's a guess based on current facts. It is not pure "imagination at work", which is where it differs from art (going back to the original argument, which is that scientific hypotheses are not art).

Okay I'll try explain as clear as possible, this might be a long reply and I apologise for such.

This is what you quoted:

"It's still science when it's a hypothesis/idea. It isn't just mere imagination at that stage - the ideas must have at least some scientific merit to be considered plausible. It's the product of research rather than something that's just been "dreamed up", which is why I wouldn't consider it art".

^ This is you're quote.

The part we totally disagree on is a hypothesis being scientific. A hypothesis could be philosophical, linguistic, et al. I made a post to you regarding that.

You say that the ideas/hypothesis (scientific or otherwise) require at least some form of evidence to be considered plausible or to be taken seriously. I agree with that, as does the dictionary, but what I don't agree with is that a hypothesis is science. To call an assumption, idea or anything else related to science is not correct, not in my view. Ideas, assumptions, guesses all require imagination and originality (even educated guesses) - this falls under the realm of art. A theory however, is science. which is the same as saying "a proved hypothesis".

You further elaborated that "it's the product of research rather than something that's just been dreamed up", which is why I would not consider it art.

Well whether you trust my judgement on this or not, Darwins theories were quite literally "dreamed up", very originally I must say, same with the theory of general relativity. I even think you would agree with me that such topics were so counter-intuitive back then, and even now.

This is why I believe hypotheses are not scientific. You can't call an idea science, but idea's can lead to scientific breakthroughs and you don't need to have evidence to come up with an idea / hypothesis. Even in science.

I didn't say all hypotheses are scientific though. Non-scientific hypotheses are not relevant to science, so it doesn't matter if you consider those to be art because they don't help science. Our discussion is only about scientific hypotheses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming that scientific hypotheses are art (lol).

Darwin came up with his natural selection hypothesis (which is now a theory) by exploring South American wildlife for 5 years, compiling notes and collecting specimens. By comparing modern specimens with fossils, he theorized that the newer species derived from similar older versions and those that didn't adapt became extinct.

You see, there must at least be some basis/facts for a scientific hypothesis, and the hypothesis must be testable. This is where it differs from art.

Realize that "science" also refers to the pursuit of knowledge, not just the existing body of knowledge.

I can't persuade you so there's no point in continuing this discussion, but I'll reply to this last one.

In your original quote, Quote: "It's still science when it's a hypothesis/idea." you said hypotheses are science (hypotheses in general - you did not specify) and even if you did specify it would not have mattered because a scientific hypotheses is a hypotheses like any other. It's an idea that's it. It's not science. It only becomes science when it's tested and passes the tests - it's then becomes a theory (which is science).

Realize that "science" also refers to the pursuit of knowledge, not just the existing body of knowledge.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming that scientific hypotheses are art (lol)."

I'm claiming that having a scientific hypothesis (an educated guess) is art yes, because it requires original thinking. Science is a method whereas original thinking and creativity is a skill; a completely separate thing from science entirely.

"Darwin came up with his natural selection hypothesis (which is now a theory) by exploring South American wildlife for 5 years, compiling notes and collecting specimens. By comparing modern specimens with fossils, he theorized that the newer species derived from similar older versions and those that didn't adapt became extinct.

You see, there must at least be some basis/facts for a scientific hypothesis, and the hypothesis must be testable. This is where it differs from art."

I agree with you that Darwin was inspired by nature to pursue his theory on natural selection, but he didn't theorize, he hypothesised. He could have been completely wrong but fortunately he was not because the scientific method proved his idea correct.

There was no basis/facts for natural selection at the time of Darwin, he had to formulate everything single handedly. The only thing he had to work with was nature herself.

Conclusion: A hypothesis (scientific or otherwise) is not science. it's a presumption. Or a good way of putting it, "A Womans intuition". ​

I will direct you to your nearest 'Game of Thrones' billboard. Or the TV adverts, which didn't just fall out of the camera like that but were carefully edited to get their point across. The first season alone had 9 million viewers in America. It's a trivial example, but to say that art will not affect the world in some way is a bit ignorant.

Every propaganda poster you've ever seen, any moving photograph of a revolution in a newspaper, any advertisement for washing up liquid on television, any company logo, even the Picasso painting 'Guernica' which shocked people in it's graphic depiction of the Spanish Civil War, is a form of art as the dictionary defines it. Maybe art bastardised for commercial purposes, but art nonetheless.

Art, whether in verbal, visual or aural form, is about communication. Science is about observation and theorisation. Often they need each other. Science has provided incredible vehicles for art to communicate with people, and likewise most people find out about the discoveries of scientists through art - even if it's only a diagramme in a textbook.

I said I wouldn't reply, but you got me. Particularly with this one.

Original thinking, thought and rationale is the starting point to all knowledge (of any kind). You need to think in order to know (rightly or wrongly).

Originality, creativity, novelty what ever you want to call it is "artistic" and not scientific because as I said before science is a method whereas thoughts are expressions and I'd go as far as to say emotions. Further more science doesn't have the faintest idea what thought or consciousness is as of yet.

Thinking is art because its an internal expression not bounded by the scientific method.

Explain to me how original thought is not art? What is thought to you then, science? because if so you'll win a nobel prize since that can't be proved as of yet.

art
/ärt/
Noun

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.