For artists and scientists which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and natural sciences?
AOK: Natural Sciences
Key Terms
Natural Scientists: People that study the physical world using their senses and reasoning to explain natural phenomena in our world
Can be explained: Concept that can be understood by anyone, has a literal explanation, and can be communicated clearly; is a tangible idea/concept
Artists: People who practice creative arts and express their creativity/message/knowledge through artistic means (paintings, films, etc.)
Cannot be explained: Concept that cannot be understood, has an explanation that is open to interpretation, and cannot be communicated clearly; abstract idea unable to be proven/explained through current means/knowledge
AOK: The Arts
Assumptions and Challenges
Why I chose this title
The title suggests that it is an either or in that artists and scientists feel the same about the importance of what can be explained and what cannot be explained in reference to their area of knowledge. However, we can challenge this assumption by equalizing the importance of both concepts for both of these groups of thinkers. Additionally, we can argue a higher level of importance for one of the concepts in relation to one of the groups of thinkers and make a different claim for the other. We should not be constricted to a one-directional mind-set; we should consider the different perspectives of these groups and base our answer off of that.
I am interested in the second PT "For artists and scientists which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and natural sciences?" This PT prompts me to explore the goals of both artists and scientists which allows me to determine the importance of an explanation is to each group of thinkers. For me, I have always been interested in the natural scientists due to the exploration of the unknown and concrete explanations of certain topics. Pondering the importance of what is already explained and what has yet to be explained causes me to want to dive into the philosophy of scientists and their objectives in their research. Though I am interested in the natural sciences, I have never been too into the arts. I am not very artistic, so anything to do with the arts were things I strayed away from. However, I recognize the importance of art as an area of knowledge, communication, and explanation. This prompt allows me to explore this area more and, again, understand the goals of artists and how they define importance for their area of expertise. This prompt enables me to investigate these diverse areas of knowledge and gain a deeper understanding of the way thinkers in these realms think.
In addition, the title assumes that for all areas within these Areas of Knowledge every thinker will feel the same and agree with one being more important than the other. However, this way of thought is narrowminded. To answer the prompt fully, we need to consider the implications of our answer and how some may disagree. But, as we consider the perspectives of specific thinkers within these groups, we will be able to provide a thoughtful, in-depth explanation of our insightful answer.
Problems with the PT
One problem with the PT is the vagueness and lack specificity of the question. In this way, the question really being asked may be difficult for some to understand. The person who is 'explaining' is not explicitly stated leaving that to the viewers imagination. It is difficult to determine whether it is something an artist or scientist that explain or a random Joe that you find off the street.
Furthermore, the question in the PT suggest that the answer must be one or the other in regards to its importance to both artists and scientists. It may be likely that we may have to write a one-sided answer.
Lastly, this PT requires that we use two predetermined AOKs, which may be a problem for those who wish to discuss alternative AOKs to answer the question. This may restrict the level to which the writer can answer the question and the insightfulness of the answer itself.
RLS
Perspectives and Counter Claims
Claim: Messages of art need to understood to clearly communicate ideas
Claim: Used to express unexplainable ideas/thoughts/emotions
Perspectives and Counter Claims
Claim: Explainable knowledge is useful to current real-world applications
Claim: The basis of science is to explain phenomena in the natural world, meaning exploring the unexplainable is the most important
Art stems from ideas/thoughts/emotions that cannot be explained/expressed through typical words or language. The unexplainable is what gives life to art and allows artists to create beautiful pieces. Without the inspiration of something unexplainable, something that can be explained cannot be created.
The point of art is to express an idea/thought/emotion that the artist wanted to convey. This result is extremely important to artists, so, from this perspective, the explainable is more important to artists. If art does not have the ability to be explainable, the artist has failed in creating an artwork.
Counter: A counter to this claim is that artworks are meant to be understood in the context of the artist. Because artists create art to convey their own message, the art doesn't have to be understood by everyone and can be solely explainable by the artist themselves.
Counter: A counter to this claim is that artists choose to use art as their form of expression rather than typical language. It is a realm they feel most comfortable in, so, even though it could be explainable using words, they use art.
This RLS is about the meaning of art and who truly decides what it means. Levitt brings up three answers to this question, the purpose is all about the viewer, the creator dictates meaning, and the senses are influenced but not completely controlled by the creator. Art's meaning comes from the viewer's perspectives and how much they value the artist’s intentions. Levitt says neither of the three is necessarily wrong to follow; it is up to the viewer to decide how they will interpret a work of art. (Find another similar to this)
This real-life situation comes from an article published by The Next Web concerning the song “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” from the movie Encanto. This song became the first song from an animated film to top the charts for multiple weeks, and it is all because of TikTok. Many TikTokers used parts of this song in their clips, causing all users to recognize it. This article describes how TikTok is the new way for songs to become popular, such as “We Don’t Talk About Bruno.” Indeed, over 175 songs from TikTok charted on the Billboard Hot 100 list. TikTok’s creativity centered around short videos provides an alternative method of songs becoming popular from radio stations and other music platforms (The Conversation).
RLS
This real-life situation comes from an article published by Neuroscience News regarding repurposing the antibiotic D-Cycloserine (DCS) to treat those with major depression disorder (MDD). Originally, DCS was used for the treatment of Tuberculosis; however, researchers at the University of Calgary have shown that it increases the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - a treatment for MDD. The researchers at Calgary performed experiments that added DCS to the TMS treatment. After many trials, it revealed that 75 percent of participants benefited from TMS and DCS compared to the 30 percent of participants who took a placebo with TMS. The repurposing of DCS will have a “very significant impact on patients’ 5 treatment outcomes,” allowing for advances in this realm of health science (University of Calgary).
The RLS is about what is needed if we are to have an AI-driven world. Schneiderman cites author Kate Crawford who described the “destructive power of AI on jobs, the environment… and democracy.” The pragmatists are the ones who bring the humanitarian perspective into the question of the future of AI. However, it is wrong to dismiss the perspective of the visionaries. Schneidermann cites a “father” of AI, Herb Simon, who said, “machines will be capable… of doing any work humans can”. Schneiderman argues that “blue-sky visionaries” and “muddy-boot pragmatists” need to work together to use AI to humanity’s benefit.
However, many areas of science, such as the medical field, use explainable knowledge to help better our society. Doctors and medical professionals use instruments and tools that have already been 'explained' to assist them in helping people. Furthermore, without the basic knowledge of astronomy, astronomers would have no idea how to explore the unexplainable in the first place. Explainable knowledge is also extremely important to scientists.
Science is a diverse realm of knowledge. Many fields of science seek to explain things that could not be previously explained. The unexplainable is what they dedicate their life to understanding and is the centerpiece of their research. They pursue things they identify as unexplainable until they make it explainable, making unexplainable things more important from this perspective.
From this RLS, we can gather that art can be seen through many different lens. The real-world examples provide a way to see the effects and the implications of these examples. Understanding that can be understood in different ways and that people have different methodologies when approaching art is crucial to determining if the explainable or unexplainable is more important to artists. This is because after understanding which methodology to approach art with, we can determine which is more important.
From this RLS, we can understand that the natural sciences utilizes explainable things to solve unexplainable things. We can see both the perspectives of explainable knowledge being more important and unexplainable knowledge being important. However, if it stays unexplained, the knowledge the scientists at Calgary gathered would be meaningless if left unapplied. So, in this RLS, I believe there is more importance placed on the explainable than the unexplainable.
From this RLS, we are able to determine that the natural sciences places a higher importance on unexplainable knowledge. The future of AI is uncertain. Although scientists have theorized possibilities that could occur, it is impossible to know for sure what will happen. However, one thing we do understand is that AI will be the next crucial step in our world. The unexplainable nature of AI's future is extremely important. So, in this view, the unexplainable is more important than the explainable.
From this RLS, we can see how artists place more importance on the explainable than the unexplainable. To make their music more widespread, apps like TikTok help creators popularize their music to the youth. In this way, the explainable methods of TikTok and the songs that the artists have created are more important than something that would be unexplainable.
Counter: Explainable knowledge is used to explore unexplainable knowledge. Many scientists use current medical technology to discover and create new pieces of technology that can revolutionize the field. This is the same for many other fields of science. So, it is also true that explainable knowledge is important for the unexplainable to scientists.