Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]barney@ncep.noaa.gov (Barney Quinn)6/30/017:27 AM > New techniques are discovered. > Newer, more accurate information comes to light. Old things long lost are found. I humbly ask, do not science and art (music, literature, visual objects, et al) rely entirely on discovery through hypothesis, test, proof? And if so, it would seem both have a history of discovery. > > I would argue that it was progress when we abandonned the notion that infection was As in so many discussions like this, terms make the difference in understanding and beliefs: progress n. 1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance. 2. Development or growth: pupils who show progress. 3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development. 4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm. ‹progress 1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate. 2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as technology progresses. ‹idiom. in progress. Going on; under way: artistic works that are in progress. > progress are also one of the things which make art and science different. I don't I would suggest that the big difference between science and art lies in usefulness and social function. And further that some scientific "progress" (meaning new discoveries) results in social and/or cultural regress (examples: DDT, weapons, etc.). George