gangle wrote:SirMustapha wrote:gangle wrote:Also I don't know that art is a form of "Answers beyond science". Art can explore issues to be sure, and can be a great source of fulfillment. Art can even lead to a certain level of enlightenment. This being said, on a basic level art does not have the answers.
And does science?
As far as I am aware, science never gave and never will give answers; it only gives us a pretty good and sufficiently accurate explanations on how things work so we can handle them better. If science actually gave the answers, then it would never have to constantly revise itself and correct itself, right? Science tries to point towards the Truth, but it's quite a stretch to act as if science actually was the Truth, and people who go around thinking like that are almost always very misguided.
So if science simply points to the Truth, doesn't art do the same thing? Art gives us a lot of questions, but so does science! Art and science are in continuous dialogue and helping each other out, but they are completely separate things. It's not saying art is beyond science as in being "ahead" of it, but they're not in the same ground, and one cannot cover up the other completely. One can't do what the other does, and dismissing one of them is completely dumb.
Randall is not "dismissing" anything completely here, but he is clearly diminishing. Try to strip off the purple prose of the second panel, and what you get is pretty much him saying "No offence, guys, but you are all idiots".
And his fans hold out the "No offence, guys" part and say See? All you haters are COMPLETELY WRONG!
Science gives us functional truths based on verifiable evidence. Art gives allows us to inform our opinions with various viewpoints. No, science hasn't found absolute truth yet, that's a long quest. Despite this science is in the habit of giving answers, even if they are only part of larger answers, and need to be updated based on new data. Art on the other hand, as healthy as it is for the mind, does not provide answers so much as provide reason for introspection. Gigantic difference.
Science cannot provide "absolute truth", because no scientific theory, no matter how well tested and developed, is ever beyond further testing, especially under new conditions. Newton, et.al., provided a very good explanation and prediction of the planetary movements--except for a little matter of Mercury's perihelion--but get more extreme levels of gravity, acceleration and relative velocity and so on, and it no longer looks so good.
No scientific theory will tell you under what conditions it fails--it just can't. That's why it continues to need examination and testing of predictions.
Hence, "absolute truth" is not part of science, and cannot be part of science. If you want absolute truth, you are not doing science.