chris magnusson

11 Mar 2010
Comments

220 notes

thefount:

cloudya:

coyotesqrl:

cloudya:

histigerlily:

gorguice:

teateateatime:

(via artpixie)

As a scientist, this makes me want to cut someone. I won’t craft a long and feisty rebuttal, because that’s not my way. But, seriously?
All I will say is science takes you to the stars, inside a living cell, and allows you to visualize the symmetry and poetry of molecules. Science and art are not mutually exclusive. Hell, I’m writing a novel while getting my Biochemistry PhD.
Also, deodorant. Brought to you by science. You’re welcome.

I would remind you that Stephen Fry’s father was a physicist and he himself is far from a Luddite. I suspect he’s exaggerating to make the point that the artificial barriers that have arisen between science and art are unfortunate and we should all strive to break them down.

Agreed. But I take umbrage at the suggestion that science is somehow inferior to art because it is analytical in nature. It’s a gut reaction to take offense at this statement when you live, eat and breathe science for 10 years, thinking your work will somehow make this world a better place, and then someone comes along and says, “Cancer cure? Pfft. All you need is love man. Scientists are soulless.”

Ignoring for a moment that “his father was a physicist” is, in this context, the equivalent of “but some of my best friends are black,” there are still many issues here.
To say that the five things he lists are the only things that matter, leaves us with two choices: consider them as umbrellas with many other things falling under each of them, in which case everything matters, or consider that most of life is completely unimportant and would best be ignored. If it is the first, then there are no problems that can be called “least significant”, and if it is the second, then hate to think about how much of our lives we are all wasting.
Saying that science goes out of its way to ignore these things is either foolishly or willfully ignorant. People spend entire careers trying to understand these things, but these are concepts and do not lend themselves to easy study. Science deals with absolutes, measurables and repeatability. An object with a mass of 1 gram remains 1 gram when I weigh it, when you weigh it or when anyone else weighs it. I cannot put love on a balance and tell you how much of it there is. If you tell me that the amount of happiness you experience from an event is not the same as what I experience, who am I to tell you that you are wrong? There is no standard that I can use to determine it.
Whatever the intent of the quote actually is, it comes off as an attempt (albeit a fallacious one) to denigrate the contributions of an entire group of people.
(Sorry Cloudy, for some of us, long and feisty diatribes are our way. ;) )

cloudya:

coyotesqrl:

cloudya:

histigerlily:

gorguice:

teateateatime:

(via artpixie)

As a scientist, this makes me want to cut someone. I won’t craft a long and feisty rebuttal, because that’s not my way. But, seriously?

All I will say is science takes you to the stars, inside a living cell, and allows you to visualize the symmetry and poetry of molecules. Science and art are not mutually exclusive. Hell, I’m writing a novel while getting my Biochemistry PhD.

Also, deodorant. Brought to you by science. You’re welcome.

I would remind you that Stephen Fry’s father was a physicist and he himself is far from a Luddite. I suspect he’s exaggerating to make the point that the artificial barriers that have arisen between science and art are unfortunate and we should all strive to break them down.

Agreed. But I take umbrage at the suggestion that science is somehow inferior to art because it is analytical in nature. It’s a gut reaction to take offense at this statement when you live, eat and breathe science for 10 years, thinking your work will somehow make this world a better place, and then someone comes along and says, “Cancer cure? Pfft. All you need is love man. Scientists are soulless.”

Ignoring for a moment that “his father was a physicist” is, in this context, the equivalent of “but some of my best friends are black,” there are still many issues here.

To say that the five things he lists are the only things that matter, leaves us with two choices: consider them as umbrellas with many other things falling under each of them, in which case everything matters, or consider that most of life is completely unimportant and would best be ignored. If it is the first, then there are no problems that can be called “least significant”, and if it is the second, then hate to think about how much of our lives we are all wasting.

Saying that science goes out of its way to ignore these things is either foolishly or willfully ignorant. People spend entire careers trying to understand these things, but these are concepts and do not lend themselves to easy study. Science deals with absolutes, measurables and repeatability. An object with a mass of 1 gram remains 1 gram when I weigh it, when you weigh it or when anyone else weighs it. I cannot put love on a balance and tell you how much of it there is. If you tell me that the amount of happiness you experience from an event is not the same as what I experience, who am I to tell you that you are wrong? There is no standard that I can use to determine it.

Whatever the intent of the quote actually is, it comes off as an attempt (albeit a fallacious one) to denigrate the contributions of an entire group of people.

(Sorry Cloudy, for some of us, long and feisty diatribes are our way. ;) )