Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    And a form of art as well.
    You must be joking. If what you say is true then pretty much every single thing is art.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    You conclude that art is not as important to society as science, why not?

    When I think of art (not science), I think of hypotheses of original ideas before they are experimentally verified with the scientific method; Einstein's papers on special and general relativity for example.

    Without art, there is no science because a hypotheses isn't science, it's an idea, until verified - then it's science.

    You posed an interesting thought.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    You must be joking. If what you say is true then pretty much every single thing is art.
    https://www.google.co.uk/#output=sea...w=1092&bih=533

    This is the Oxford dictionary definition of art.

    1. 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''

    Synonyms

    Craft, skill, artifice, science, workmanship, knack etc...

    So typically art is conveyed in the visual as well as the imaginative form. It took you're imagination to write a Facebook message about yourself and although it wasn't a great deal of imagination or thought to do such a task, it's still a form of creativity none the less and following this, a form of art.

    This is by factual definition of course. You may have an opinion that does not agree to the facts which is your privilege as an individual.

    I try keep my opinions out with the facts myself.

    Regards,

    L.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    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_r...w=1092&bih=533

    Regards,

    L.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    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_r...w=1092&bih=533

    Regards,

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ahahahhahahaha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    Yes, but we're referring specifically to scientific hypotheses here.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    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.
    I'm not sure that's what they're trying to get at.

    Much of science discussion is very conceptual. It deals with things too small for us to see, or too complex for us to really describe. Scientists (and mathemeticians too) have to excercise their imaginations regularly in order to theorise how these things might work and what they might look like.

    Humans are very visual creatures, and we often understand things best if shown a visual depiction of something. If you look in any GCSE science textbook you can find a diagram of an atom, allowing it to be understood by the audience. Is this drawing really what an atom looks like? Probably not, but it gives the audience a more solid idea of atoms that they can then work with in their further studies.

    In fact, you could say that this is the 'practical' art the previous poster was looking for. Essentially art is a form of communication, while science is a form of observation. When the two are used in conjuction you make a discovery (science!) and then are able to tell the widest audience possible what it is you found (art!)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    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.
    I suggest you try looking at the google link you yourself posted.

    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    I suggest you try looking at the google link you yourself posted.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about Art created by those in art therapy classes? Art can help society, these people use art as a form of self expression to help themselves overcome traumatic experiences in their lives. These people are not attention seekers, only doing it to benefit themselves.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    :curious:
    Books have changed the world, be it The Bible or The Origin of Species....but art has not.
    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 *******ised 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertHawking)
    so true :L


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Nooo it's not true. It's false Just like a a scientific hypothesis being science, which is also false :P
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    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.
    Here is my post that you quoted:

    (Original post by justinawe)
    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 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).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    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.
    Art certainly does have practical uses. The iPhone and iPod aren't the most successful devices in their fields because they were the first or the best, it's because they were well designed and well marketed. Both are practical examples of artistic expression. Design and marketing are in fact lynchpins of the British economy - we are a world leader in this field.

    And that is well before we get into the way art enriches our lives every day. Would you rather live in a pretty house or a 100% functional Soviet-type tower block? Do you listen to any music, watch any TV programmes, any films?

    And that is a form of usefulness because it makes people happy and also persuades them to spend more. You cannot ignore that there is such a thing as society; too many wannabe smartasses think it's cool to point out that investigating society is unscientific and a waste of time, when the release of a new consumer good probably affects a lot more actual people's lives than, say, the Moon landings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    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 your 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 or merit as you call it 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 and tested 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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    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).

    "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".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    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).
    I said "it's still science when it's a hypothesis/idea" - I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to hypotheses under the banner of science, i.e. scientific hypotheses. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough, though.

    Refer to this part of my previous post as well:

    (Original post by myself)
    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.
    You are right in saying that it requires original thinking and (to an extent) creativity, but this doesn't make it art. In art, you can simply use your imagination as you please - you are not bound by the scientific method. You appear to be implying that scientific hypotheses are simply stories that are conjured up and then presented as ideas, rather than a deduction based on current facts.

    "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".
    While a theory is not the same as a hypothesis, "theorise" and "hypothesise" are generally used interchangeably. Whatever the case, that is simply semantics and isn't relevant to this discussion.

    The comparison of modern specimens with fossils was his basis. You seem to be claiming he simply dreamed it up without doing any research whatsoever - if this were the case, then I'd agree with you that is was art, but this is very far from the truth.

    I hate to repeat myself, but one last time: the pursuit of knowledge is also considered science.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    Bizarre things students have spent their loans onThings you should budget for at uni

    Sponsored features:

    Making money from your own website

    Need some cash?

    How to make money running your own website.

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.