Science; Views

Baconian View (Simple View of Science)
- Cccumulate observations as unbias-ly as possible
- Infer a general law to fit observations
- Conduct Experiments to prove law is true

Problems
- Theory shapes what scientists see
- Language presents statements from being totally unbiased
- Scientists choose what to see & record; impossible to observe everything
- Senses can mislead us
- (Allows us to pass laws which merely fit "facts")

Parsimony
- To prefer least complicated explanation for observation
- Regarded as good when judging hypothesis
- AKA Ockham's razor
- Inference to best explanation (I.E)
- Simplest explanation is usually preferred

Intro to Science in KI, 13/7/09

For today, we had a "lecture" which is a basic introduction of scientific knowledge and its history.

First, we discussed what is science. It was concluded as the study of "physical" phenomena. However, when the idea of scienctific knowledge was brought up, another discussion was brought up and was left off asknowledge gained about physical phenomena although the idea of scientific knowledge being knowledge constructed by the "scientific method"(hypothesis... experiment ...etc..) was brought up.

Now on to the history of science. Todays "lecture" mainly delt with western science. The father of modern science is often seen as Aristotle who claims scientific knowledge comes from observing natural phenomena and proposed that everything has a cause and effect, an assumption made by most when doing scientific research.

Then the first class of science was discussed, astronomy. People started looking to the skies before looking at the world around them(stange indeed). From here, the Ptolemaic system was brought up. It is the concept of the solar system with earth being at its centre and the sun and moon revolving around it as well as the universe being encompassed by a shell with stars being embeded in it. Then the system suggested by Nocholas Copernicus and supported by Galileo Galilei was made. It puts the sun at the centre of the solar system but still has the universe as something finite. Then came the modern understanding which puts the universe as infinite as well as the sun at the centre of the solar system. This shows how science has been in constant progress.

This led to Thomas Kuhn suggesting that science is made of paradigms which are shaken as time goes on for it to progress as all the previous advancements shook the scientific world in their time.

Another example of how science progress through time is the view on time and space. From
Isaac Newton's view of a clockwork universe where everything has absolute phenomena and causes and effects to Einsteins's Theory of Relativity which puts everything in space and time as relative to Quantem Physics which I don't really understand.

So essentially today was one big introduction. Not much notes execpt background knowledge and trivia for ones interest. Hope this helped.

Emotions in epistemology

Hey, guys!

I went searching for 'emotions' in epistemology and I found two really useful files. One's a doc. while there other's a ppt.

Haha, I know it's long, but we've got the holidays!

Enjoy the holidays. Hmm, I was thinking whether we could have like a KI consolidation before the Common Test?

Anw, here's the link

emotionpacket

Emotion, reason and virtue



Have a good laugh! :D

Art and Morality 27/4/09

Today we discussed about art and morality

We went through some pieces of art that contained "immoral properties" as a starter

We also discussed: Does the artist make a difference about the moral property of the art piece? (e.g. If Hitler drew a piece of art does it express his immorality?) We agreed that it we think this is so as the "evilness" of people is usually expressed consistently hence leading to the idea that the art pieces they make likewise is immoral (e.g. Britney Spear's music?)

We also went through some terms : Epistemic, ontological and aesthetic (Ref. KM for full notes)

Epistemic : The capacity of an artwork to possess ethical knowledege
Onotological: The categorical quality of an artwork to bear moral properties
Aesthetic : Relationship between aesthetic judgement and moral judgement

We agreed on certain statements : It is not necessary for art to bear moral properties but artwork can bear moral properties
Under what circumstances?: We discussed "piss Christ" which showed a crucifix in a vat of urine. Does the religious element in the art piece give it it's moral properties?

We also discussed the issue whether Morality is innate. Is the morality in us or in the artpiece? Does the content of the art piece gives it its moral properties or is it because of the viewer that the art piece "given" moral properties?

Lastly we discussed : When we are making an aesthetic judgement are we also making an aesthestic judgement? Hence we decided to make a "fair" judgement we must be very specific i.e. From the purely objective POV of the artwork (strokes, colours, contrast etc.) , the art is good art however it is morally wrong. However we also agreed that this makes an art piece hard to judge as we must always separate the art from the morality.

-Scribed by Jia Sheng ;D

Aristotle’s perspectives in art

Aristotle regards ethical values, e.g. justice similar to aesthetic, we doubt that he has a concept of art in the modern sense. His perception of art is more related to perception. His definition of art fits into mimesis/representation

He claims that pleasure happens because of our natural predisposition/natural capacity towards it under favorable conditions (Our response is a natural response, something’s innate; in other words, we’re inclined towards nature)

“When a well-conditioned capacity for perception reasoning or contemplation is exercised on the worthiest objects one has the most complete and most pleasurable activity” This shows why we enjoy art.
Where does this predisposition come from? It’s innate. (Full-stop)

Side notes: Factory Art (Reproduction of art)
For e.g. the Monalisa’s posters and souvenir, is it art?

Before we move one and quibble over technicalities,
‘Carbon copy’ in this discussion is assumed that
- it is a perfect imitation of an art piece, this would mean that there is no intent to express anything at all when reproducing the original artwork

A carbon-copy is still art! This is because it is still able to express and the originalities found in the original work assuming that the copier is perfect, the forms, shapes and colours.

Kant’s aesthetics

The Judgment of Beauty

1st Moments: Judgment of beauty are based on feelings
Judgment brings pleasure
Objective; “disinterested”

2nd Moment: ‘Universality of Beauty”
One feels that all feel the same way, no rules to compel

3rd Moment
Unlike judgment of the good, judgment not of a concrete purpose

4th Moment
Judgment of beauty involve reference to the idea of necessity , everyone ‘should’ believe that something is beautiful

The Deduction of Taste

Aesthetic judgment can actually be reasoned out
Our judgment can be used in judging aesthetic experience

Beauty has no real purpose: yet it is pleasurable to us

New principle of art being purposive in nature

When we look at art, we don’t look at it differently=>still using our minds and brain=>everyone is using the same concepts=>art can be reasoned and deduced

For art, there is no determinate concept

We know that art is beautiful because of ‘common sense’: how the mind perceives it

The Sublime:

A type of aesthetic exp.: something pleasurable to us all

Art can be overwhelming:

How we gain pleasure from this overwhelming exp.

Mathematically: we look at the form and totality of the object


Fine Art and Genius

Kant assumes that the thinking involved in judging fine art is similar to judging natural beauty
Fine art has to deal with how it is created
Fine art is an aesthetic idea
We distinguish art from nature, we know that there’s no ‘intention to it’, it happens naturally

According to Kant, Art is skill that distinguish itself from other abilities, it forms a different type of knowledge
Mechanical Art: Purpose

Aesthetic Art: Pleasure

Art is produced by a ‘genius’, not external factors

Idealism, Morality and the Supersensible

Purposiveness of nature is only an ideal concept
Connection between beauty and morality

Kant’s Aesthetics (Mr. Dio’s illustrations)

Judging art is different

It is universal (Our judgment) [American Idol e.g.]

Purposiveness of Art:

i) Beauty don’t seem to have ‘concrete’ purpose, judging art and beauty has nothing to do with a purpose

ii) Since we can judge, there’s reason for us (our own judgment); it gains purpose thanks to this ability we have, a new and unique purpose (judgment, evaluation, experience)

Beauty can be purposive because of our ability to judge it.

The Sublime: “Something higher than beauty”

‘For an e.g. explosions’

Sublime doesn’t make us judge in the same way

We don’t want to judge, it is made to transcend, so we don’t judge, it’s the ‘whoa’ feeling

Fine arts and genius

The more we think of an artwork (investigate beauty), at first we focus on the object, later we can’t help but think of the conditions that made it (artist)

He explains and describes how an artist makes beauty (a good artist)

Idealism, Morality and the Supersensible

All these beauty seems pointless, but we can still talk about it, there must a reason somewhere.

Nature vs. Art (Art- Genius, Nature-hidden substrate)

Group WOrk, by Angie :]

Wad ur grp did: Formalism
 
The formalist art aim is not to capture the perceptual appearances of the world, but often to make note-worthy images which have visual organization, form and arresting design. 
Eg. Music and the formalism'
Literature and form
 
The common denominator arg:
1. Only if x is a feature of all artworks is x a plausible contender to be an essential of art.
2. either representation or expression of form is a feature of all artworks
3. rep. is not a feature of all artworks
4. expression is not a feature too.
5. thus form is a feature of all artworks and is a plausible contender to be an essential feature of all artworks
 
Wad Ben 'n Ben did. heez
 
Expression Theory of Art.
 "Audience Response is wad is IMPT in art."~Burke, Hutcheson and Hume
i.e. pleasure in art is a matter of taste and sentiment.
 
Leo Tolstoy: Art serves a moral purpose to bind ppl together under GOD>
 
(think you better get Ben to send u the slides to upload. Thanks)
 
Wad my grp did: ask arjuna. he has ALL the slides