This is second hand, but apparently in a talk at the University of Washington Prof. Edmond Fischer said something interesting. I do not know the exact words, but will try and convey what the person who told me about this understood from his talk.
Prof. Fischer essentially said that unlike artists scientists should not consider themselves unique. Only Micheangelo could have painted the Sistine Chapel the way he did, but if Albert Einstein had not done so, someone else would have eventually come up with the Theory of Relativity. Hearing this really struck home with me, since it only serves to illustrate something that I have long believed. Science is a formalism of the world around us, and in the end we have a unique answer that explains natural phenomena. In the end, someone will find the answer. That independent research groups often come to similar conclusions independently is just a manifestation of that. Yes, we might use different approaches. Our answers might not even be correct, since they might be driven by incomplete knowledge, but eventually we get there.
Now if only I could paint like Michelangelo or better still play like Jordan Rudess.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Paul Dirac: One of the greatest British minds of the 20th century (telegraph.co.uk)
- DREAM THEATER’s JORDAN RUDESS At NAMM; Video Available (idiomag.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=6b4e27b2-107d-41f0-b5fb-bfbbc46bd28e)
4 Comments
Consider that there are people now who can emulate with fantastic accuracy the painting style of Michelangelo or the licks of Jordan Rudess. By (your interpretation of) Prof. Fischer's logic, these people, then, could have also wound up developing this style on their own. (We could be saying, “I wish I could play like Deepak Singh,” instead.) That is, art and music are not distinct from science, and no one person hinders the progress of humankind in any of its pursuits. Therefore, the statement presents a contradiction and can not be true.
Now, on the other hand, let's ask ourselves: Are we (researchers) indeed replaceable? Nothing gets done until someone does the work. Remember, ideas are a multiplier of execution. Without someone there to do the research, the net gain is nothing. It's in the execution that we are, indeed, unique. (Nobody right now is working on the same problem as anyone else in the exact same way with the same perceptions and ignorances anyone else has.) Then again, we have a contradiction, because science and art are continued by unique individuals, and thus, the statement presents a contradiction, and can not be true.
Emulation is one thing, creating or coming up with the idea is another. Science is governed by fact. Art isn't. There is a science to art and music, but their is a good deal of interpretation and subjectivity. In the end, once we have a full understanding, there is no interpretation, no assumption. If you gave someone not named Michelangelo the change to paint the Sistine Chapel, it would not be the same. The laws of motion though, are unique. Therein lives the difference.
Consider that there are people now who can emulate with fantastic accuracy the painting style of Michelangelo or the licks of Jordan Rudess. By (your interpretation of) Prof. Fischer's logic, these people, then, could have also wound up developing this style on their own. (We could be saying, “I wish I could play like Deepak Singh,” instead.) That is, art and music are not distinct from science, and no one person hinders the progress of humankind in any of its pursuits. Therefore, the statement presents a contradiction and can not be true.
Now, on the other hand, let's ask ourselves: Are we (researchers) indeed replaceable? Nothing gets done until someone does the work. Remember, ideas are a multiplier of execution. Without someone there to do the research, the net gain is nothing. It's in the execution that we are, indeed, unique. (Nobody right now is working on the same problem as anyone else in the exact same way with the same perceptions and ignorances anyone else has.) Then again, we have a contradiction, because science and art are continued by unique individuals, and thus, the statement presents a contradiction, and can not be true.
Emulation is one thing, creating or coming up with the idea is another. Science is governed by fact. Art isn't. There is a science to art and music, but their is a good deal of interpretation and subjectivity. In the end, once we have a full understanding, there is no interpretation, no assumption. If you gave someone not named Michelangelo the change to paint the Sistine Chapel, it would not be the same. The laws of motion though, are unique. Therein lives the difference.