Corpus Christi Trimble

[Ian H]

A scientist does. An artist is.  

That makes as much sense the other way round. If I claim to be an artist in a very small way, it's cos of what I does - in my case making marks on canvas that other people may or may not be able to invest with some kind of meaning. The frustration is never knowing whether I've got it right.

[her_welshness]

I'm dying to ask him his views on the visual arts and music...but I shall refrain.

Music I "get", from classical all the way to noisy metal.  I've even read a few musicology books, and it makes sense.  Visual arts: there's stuff I like, and stuff I don't like, pretty much like everyone else.

There you go, very potted.

her_welshness: have novelists shaped society, or are they just a reflection on it?

Both, and scientists have also shaped society. Take Thomas Carlyle - a man very much of his time yet his writing was hugely influential, it kicked off the Transcendental Movement in the United States and his ideas were said to have influenced people like Goebbels and Hitler. He was also a novelist!

[Really Ancien]

I hadn't appreciated that she was a 26 year old postgraduate, people have been University Professors at a younger age than that. I'd restrict the show to undergraduates, preferably 21 and younger.

Damon.

[bikenerd]

A scientist does. An artist is. 

That makes as much sense the other way round. If I claim to be an artist in a very small way, it's cos of what I does - in my case making marks on canvas that other people may or may not be able to invest with some kind of meaning. The frustration is never knowing whether I've got it right.

Modern science is a bit like that, especially when dealing with chaotic non-linear systems, like the Earth's atmosphere.
Have I got it right?  Have I accounted for every case, every trajectory springing from a bifurcation?
Creativity and doubt is what science is all about, really.

[David Martin]

A scientist does. An artist is.  

That makes as much sense the other way round. If I claim to be an artist in a very small way, it's cos of what I does - in my case making marks on canvas that other people may or may not be able to invest with some kind of meaning. The frustration is never knowing whether I've got it right.

Right is a difficult word. Consistent is testable.

You are right about the converse being true. There are many artificial distinctions that seem fine in the fleeting moment of inception but are then washed away by reality. (A scientist asks how, an artist why?)

Ultimately art is about representation and science about knowledge. Representing knowledge, now that is a challenge. Representing emotion? Wow that is hard.

..d

[Frenchie]

Thanks David.  You've said in a more eloquent and less confrontational manner what I've been trying to for the past n pages.

All of the above is my pent up frustration at the lack of respect shown to science and scientists by the arts students I've met in my time. 

+n

...and the fact that there's anything wrong with being industry funded. If there's a use for "it", "it" will get (more) funding, more students will get opportunities etc., but this does not mean it is "easy" or less "creative" etc.

[Really Ancien]

I'd have questions from the real world. Building Regs, Recipes, Garden plants,  that sort of thing.

Damon.

[Frenchie]

I'd have questions from the real world. Building Regs, Recipes, Garden plants,  that sort of thing.

One of my mathematician friends used to say his world was very "real" and would get crossed at this expression... 

[Wowbagger]

As I said before, I thoroughly dislike the starkness of the division between the "arts" and the "sciences". Everything is connected to everything else.

Is philosophy an art or a science? Or does it transcend the two? Where does morality stand here?

[Bluebottle]

I am genuinely not wishing to be flippant.  For "morality" read "ethics" and ask the same question.

I don't have an answer to it but science should be facing up to the question more and more these days.

Why does more money go into the science research councils compared to the arts and humanities: because the government has taken the decision that the U.K. p.l.c. gets more return on its investment that way.

[Wowbagger]

Why does more money go into the science research councils compared to the arts and humanities: because the government has taken the decision that the U.K. p.l.c. gets more return on its investment that way.

Quite. Maybe it is justifiable that more is spent on science subjects than arts, but the figures I found indicated a level of science spending an order of magnitude 27 times that of the arts. That seems rather one-sided to me.

[Wascally Weasel]

While I don't think that there should be 'sides', through life I've found open minded individuals with interests in both the arts and the sciences.  Some of them started out studying the sciences, some the arts (some neither) but still ended up with a balance of interests (I can't believe no one has mentioned Da Vinci yet).

If anything is to blame it's the forced early specialisation in our further education system.

I've found intolerant people on both sides of the arts/sciences debate too.  What we need to do is settle our differences and then gang up on the drama students, what have they ever done for us eh?

[Bluebottle]

Er, Roman battle re-enactment?

[HMHB] Battle re-enactment, lets see you tackle this one.  Luton Town-Millwall, 1985[/HMHB]

Less prosaically (although worthy arts all the same), Wowbagger, I agree it is one-sided.  I do not know if it is "fair" reflection.  As a chemist, obviously I'd rather there was more funding for chemical research...

[Wowbagger]

Da Vinci is a towering polymath. From more recent times, I'd nominate Bertrand Russell as a strong candidate for Top Brain from the 20th Century.

There's no reason why these great thinkers should be channelled purely down the "scientific" or the "artistic" corridor.  I think that great minds should be encouraged to investigate anything they see fit.

[GruB]

She was saying on the radio this am. that all the attention she's getting from the media etc is essentially because she’s female, the implication being AFAICS that ‘fuss’ especially from some quarters is sexist, and if she was male it would not have been the same.

I saw that too.  We need to encourage smart women, to get them out of the kitchen and into the bedroom.

You Australians!

FTFM 

[geoff]

Why does more money go into the science research councils compared to the arts and humanities: because the government has taken the decision that the U.K. p.l.c. gets more return on its investment that way.

Quite. Maybe it is justifiable that more is spent on science subjects than arts, but the figures I found indicated a level of science spending an order of magnitude 27 times that of the arts. That seems rather one-sided to me.

I'm wrestling with this question every day of my working life. One reason for "hard" science getting more money than the Arts or Social Sciences is that labs, infrastructure, equipment are more costly than normal offices, classrooms and lecture theatres which are the usual habitat of many Humanities scholars. Not to say all though: there are Humanities people involved in all sorts of digital stuff, and lab. work too so they can (for example) decipher what's written on papyri. But "why Latin" is a bit like " why not just science". The answer probably isn't just to do with what can or can't be sold (though of course, fiction and music, TV and film support huge commercial enterprises).

One significant reason is to do with how people know what direction to take, what choices to make and how to arrive at moral decisions. Some of that wisdom can be informed by scientific method. Other - very significant - areas are informed by past example, imagination and reasoning. So a major value of the Humanities is in equipping people with the intellectual skills to arrive at and exercise balanced judgements. (Without the lessons of history we are sleepwalkers - and of course Roman and much mediaeval history is written in Latin).

I'm a strong supporter of science as well...and I'd opine that no-one is much educated until they have some understanding and experience of both Arts and Science. So it seems depressing to have Government determined to protect research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths without offering similar protection to research in the Humanities. But it isn't about "dead languages": it's about the ideas and culture that everyone is entitled to have access to - and it can be argued that ideas and culture are some of what makes life worth living.

[HTFB]

There's no reason why these great thinkers should be channelled purely down the "scientific" or the "artistic" corridor.  I think that great minds should be encouraged to investigate anything they see fit.

Einstein plays excellently. However, his worldwide fame is undeserved. There are many other violinists who are just as good.

---the music critic of a German local paper forgets that he's at a charity concert.

[Manotea]

Is it just that supercolliders cost more than Stradivari?

[Wowbagger]

Thanks, Geoff, a very helpful post.

To what extent is the concentration on science working? I seem to remember hearing a few years ago that in one particular year, the national total of Physics graduates going into teaching was 19. (Warning: this is a vague memory and is probably wrong, but physics went through a prolonged period of being a shortage subject).

[Frenchie]

If they all go and work for industry, it works to an extent Wow and it may be that more people need training in the subject; and better salaries to be offered to them for them to become teachers.

I don't like the work concentration though. The UK and its companies are finding it useful to invest in science and engineering. It is useful in that novel material and knowledge are produced that will give them a competitive edge. It is useful in that it trains people to go to industry with the required skills; it provides an answer to a demand. If you do a PhD in engineering in a university I know well and in a subject I know well and/or on applications I know well  , companies will line up to hire you because of those skills. They are also willing to fund PhDs. An example of such success, which hires very good British and European graduates in engineering and science, is a big gas turbine manufacturer located in Derby for example. Probably the government should sponsor more classic subjects though; but businesses will continue to invest in the training of people and the knowledge they think they need for the future, and that is going to be biased.

I do not agree that the sole reason for the difference in funding are the labs. Social scientists will require travel, will also use supercomputers... It is also possible to do the hardest of sciences, say in math, with a pen and paper. In general, yes, engineering physics and bio-sciences will require big hardware, but the reason for the difference in funding is elsewhere in my views.

[geoff]

Is it just that supercolliders cost more than Stradivari?

or that when they go wrong they waste cost £ lots ?

[TimO]

Given it cost £3.6×10⁹, the repair costs are less than 1% of the original cost, so on this scale, relatively small potatoes.

[andygates]

About the same as touching up a chip on a new bike's paintwork, in fact.

[her_welshness]

It was reported on Radio 4 this morning that University challenge producers were investigating the fact that one of the CCC team members had already graduated from college and was therefore no longer a student.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC in University Challenge probe

[Cunobelin]

Anyone know the rules?

Apparently he was student on application, and during all the games apart from the final by which time he had graduated......

Is there anything in the rules to deal with this?