Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 98 23:48:06 EST
Blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:
Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.
Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's a loss for more than just his colleagues.
I believe this view to be fundamentaly flawed. Consider that if a particular scientist doesn't publish (ala Fermat) then this does not inherently prohibit or inhibit others from deriving the result (lot's of examples so I won't pick a single one). However, when an artist or other practitioner of human expression fails to publish then an item of unique character is lost. Had T.S. Elliot not written 'Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats' it is *very* unlikely that *anyone* in the entire remaining history of the universe would have written those charming poems and we would be deprived among other things of knowing why a cat has three names. In addition, the fact that a given individual finds no worth in why a cat has three names does not change the worth of the insight provided by the author. So, while a given art critics views may not mean much to you this does not justify in any manner trivializing that worth for others. To do so would indicate a personality of extreme hubris and potentialy a severe sociopathy. Expect them to begin walking around with their hand in their vest at any moment. The distinction is that human expression doesn't assume homogeneity nor isotropy as science requires. Rather it assumes a priori that each activity and it's result is unique in the history of the universe and fundamentaly an expression of that *individual* view of experience. That is what art derives it worth from while science derives its worth from the result being the same irrespective of the practitioner. And before somebody brings it up, while reality *is* observer dependant, this is a recognition that the act of testing is fundamentaly a part of the sytsem being tested. The statistical results *are* homogenious and isotropic for observers - Fire in the Deep not withstanding. The end of our exploring will be to arrive at where we started, and to know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
... If an art critic declines to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's a loss for more than just his colleagues.
The author has a skewed view which says that science is more important than art. Simply not true. Don't get too narrow a view of "progress". --David Miller middle rival devil rim lad Windows '95 -- a dirty, two-bit operating system.
David Miller <dm0@avana.net> writes:
... If an art critic declines to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's a loss for more than just his colleagues.
The author has a skewed view which says that science is more important than art. Simply not true. Don't get too narrow a view of "progress".
David, you need to learn to read. "Art critic" != art, just like "lit crit" != literature. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:
Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientist to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from i
Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's a loss for more than just his colleagues.
I believe this view to be fundamentaly flawed. Consider that if a particular scientist doesn't publish (ala Fermat) then this does not inherently prohibit or inhibit others from deriving the result (lot's of examples so I won't pick a single one).
You don't seem to realize that the likelyhood of someone independently rediscovering a "lost" math result is much less than the likelyhood of two people independently creating substantially similar works of art. For example, all of T.S.Elliot's poetry is substantially similar to Walt Whitman's poetry. They are, for most intents and purposes, mutually interchangeable. (Emily "lick my bud" Dickinson is almost interchangeable.)
However, when an artist or other practitioner of human expression fails to publish then an item of unique character is lost. Had T.S. Elliot not written 'Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats' it is *very* unlikely that *anyone* in the entire remaining history of the universe would have written those charming poems and we would be deprived among other things of knowing why a cat has three names.
I was using art critics as an example, not artists. Don't you know who art critics are?
In addition, the fact that a given individual finds no worth in why a cat has three names does not change the worth of the insight provided by the author. So, while a given art critics views may not mean much to you this does not justify in any manner trivializing that worth for others.
Think why I thought of art/lit critics and not, e.g., archeologists.
To do so would indicate a personality of extreme hubris and potentialy a severe sociopathy.
Why thank you.
Expect them to begin walking around with their hand in their vest at any moment.
I've got to get me a vest...
The distinction is that human expression doesn't assume homogeneity nor isotropy as science requires. Rather it assumes a priori that each activity and it's result is unique in the history of the universe and fundamentaly an expression of that *individual* view of experience. That is what art derives it worth from while science derives its worth from the result being the same irrespective of the practitioner.
Well, you were just ranting about the non-euclidean geometries created by Gauss, Lobachevsky, and janos (not Farkas) Bolyai. Are they the same? Does their choice of words to express their mathematical ideas matter? Does it matter who published first? Would it be a loss for humanity if Lubachevsky, like Gauss, chose not to publish contraversial ideas? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
David Miller -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jim Choate