You're the Somali Education Minister !!!!!

[PragmaticGal]

Cawar, it's this mean streak I have. DD is a bully-magnet

DD, what's this thing you have for "demonstrability"? I can demonstrate objectively that 1 mL of hydrochloric acid will neutralize 1 mL of sodium hydroxide, but that fact is not nearly as important to me as the unquantifiable sense of pleasure I get from listening to John Mississippi Hurt.

Your request for a list of problems art has solved is rather childish. Most people feel that art is an end in itself, not a means to an end (an end which you've as yet to explain intelligibly). Science is also a noble pursuit in and of itself, even if occasionally we get useful items like x-ray machines and solar panels.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="PragmaticGal"] Nonsense. Objectively, all you've demonstrated is that you can create a set of problems that one person can solve but another cannot. [quote]

The hypothetical men are tought the SAME material. Given the same time to learn them. All felicitous conditions are equal, variables accounted for. Then and only then are they given a random, double-blind test... no chance of biases. So you're quibbling there about the skewed nature of the test. The only variable is the TWO MEN themselves. One is able to successfully solve the problems, the other is unable. Therefore, the only rational explanation is one is more intelligent than the other.



[quote]What if the man who could not answer the problems correctly can write a piece of music that listeners find a pleasure to hear, but the other one is completely tone-deaf? [quote]

You still don't get it. A piece of music or any composition of artisitic work can NOT be objectively measured in the same way you can verify correctness of solved math problem or measure Newton's F (unbl) = ma. Upon hearing a piece of music, what can you do but agree or disagree with it? Some ppl think Handel's Water Music is pinnacle of human creativity. Others disagree. How do you decide between them? You simply can't. Would the same dilemma exist if it was instead Newtons F = ma? Absolutely not. If unbalanced force equals to mass times accelaration, it should experimental hold true. And it does. See the difference now?



[quote]What's your yardstick for intelligence?[/quote]

No need for yardsticks. Just use me.

[Cawar]

I wonder if DD knows the diff. between an invention and a creation??

Newton discovered(if you could say invented) things, while Mozart created...

BTW...Its different in almost every language...and creativity takes the higher stage/prestige if you will..all the time.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="PragmaticGal"] but that fact is not nearly as important to me as the unquantifiable sense of pleasure I get from listening to John Mississippi Hurt.[quote]

But we're not talking about you, me or anyone else. Only what can be shown to be right or false. What's true or important for YOU is useless to the world unless you're solipsist. Are you?



[quote]Your request for a list of problems art has solved is rather childish. [quote]

It's not childish at all dear. Either art solved real problems or it didn't. Asking you to produce a very short list of the problems art solved is very apposite to this discussion. Forget about a list, just name 1 or 2 problems art solved.



[quote]Most people feel that art is an end in itself, not a means to an end [quote]

And that should matter... why exactly? Many ppl also think your beheading for apostating is end unto itself, not a means to an end. What ppl say is not the issue here. Only the usefullness of art outside of cogitative purposes.

[Gedo_Boy]

DD,

Let's take your example one step further.

What if the man A can solve the mathematical problems while man B can't solve them. Let's say that man B is horrible in mathematics.

What if man B can solve problems in Physics and Chemistry while man A doesn't have a clue.

What you're describing is a standardized test. The idea of a standardized test is to measure intelligence or something similar, but it fails in the real world.

Can we expect the head of a class to always be the most intelligent?

[Gedo_Boy]

PragmaticGal,

Who's John Mississippi Hurt

[PragmaticGal]

GB, he's a Delta Blues legend. Cilmiile posted a clip of him playing a song, check it out.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="Cawar"]Newton discovered(if you could say invented) things, while Mozart created... [quote]


definately discovered, gravity was always there. I love Mozart myself but if I had to choose between Newton and Mozart, it'd be Newton hands down. Newton helped us see the WORLD for what it is. Mozart helped us see the world as he saw it. Such is the difference between artist and scientist. TRUTH!



[quote] creativity takes the higher stage/prestige if you will..all the time.[/quote]

not with matters regarding Knowledge. not all the creativity in the world will disprove gravity, only demonstrable facts.

[Gedo_Boy]

DD,

I don' think we're talking about who's more influential Netwon or Mozart.

But the question is can art, in one form or another, inspire creativity that is needed for science.

Essentially, developing science is the ability to see something in a truly unique way. One can argue that art allows someone's innate creative abilities to be made manifest to society.

If art is innate itself, someone can possibly use art that exists as inspiration for something scientific.

What if someone is looking at an intricate tile patttern and sees something mathematically valuable in that.

An artist can see something intuitively beautiful aesthetically, but a mathematician can describe those properties.

I believe all knowledge has innate roots and human beings have the capability, it just takes a discerning eye.

Science is the mind's eye.
Art is the visual eye.

There is some relationship.

[gurey25]

bumping this thread up.