Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PT 2: For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what…
PT 2: For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.
UNPACKING PT
-
FOR
- The word 'for' emphasis on the view or perspective of the artists and natural scientists
- Does it mean that the importance of what can be explained or not is accepted by the majority of that particular community or does it depends on individuality?
If it depends on the majority, there needs to be a common understanding in the community that most are agreed with.
-
-
-
-
-
If it depends on individuality (no fixed truth in the community), it is probably based on the preference or perception of the individual to knowledge
-
-
-
-
- The word could mean that knowledge brings a purpose to the community (it has value; physical or theoretical).
However, does the 'value' take into account the perspective of people outside the community?
-
IMPORTANT
- A knowledge having great significance or value to a certain community
their value could be look upon how the community perceive it and the redudancy/repetition of it in the AOK
- Since there is the word 'more', it could signify that which between the 2 options have more positive outlook in the community
EXPLAINED / UNEXPLAINED
- There is a reason/meaning behind the knowledge that is produced/acquired (significant to the creator of the knowledge & its audience)
-
this could only be true for something that can be explained as it has few evidence that can justify the reason/meaning
- Unexplained knowledge might have something to do with the lack of evidence or not logical in the nature of this world or unclear causation (very vague)
However, it might be also that something is at first can be explained but because of the curiosity of human nature, many interpretation exists due to we overthinking the details
-
ARGUMENT 2 (ARTS)
-
-
-
Why does interpretation have many forms, and it might differ? Do experts and non-experts have a conclusive understanding? If not, how can it be different?
How can a painting or literature can be considered as an artwork? What criteria is used to determine it? What is the difference between a masterpiece and a non-artists artwork?
There is a difference between an artists who applies meaning and art student who is following the teachers' direction
-
-
But, if the selected community doesn't have any preferences on those 2 options when producing/acquiring knowledge, can it be said that both explained & unexplained is equal in their significance?
-
hidden meaning could leave many interpretations from the audience which are almost similar or different from the opinion of the creator
-
-
- There's no wreckage of sunken ships or airplanes, so the real factor cannot be determined (what causes it & why)
physical evidence (parts of aircraft) sometimes can be salvaged and undergoes wreckage reassembling - assist in determining missing/damaged parts
This would give a fuller idea of what happened. Physical evidence is a must component and need to be collected as much as possible
-
“There are signs that the major changes that are occurring in the marine environment and ocean circulation are driven by climate change,” Dr Meynecke said.
“But with only 10 years of data and the long term cycles that exist in ocean systems we are going to need a longer time series to come to a definitive conclusion.”
-
-
-
probably not all have to be achieved - certain knowledge could be true to majority but it is not logical in the eye of natural science/art, but it is common among many people
-
-
Does the opinion/perception of the general audience matter due to it is more "For artists & natural scientists"?
It could probably be affected by the method of storytelling so the question does look upon on how the knowledge is produced/acquired
It also shows that the significance of what can be explained or not is subjective, and probably depends solely on the nature of the AOK & what is more ideal to people
-
If there is no ground for investigation, that would not need a new knowledge (Quite possibly)
Sources is like the main criteria for producing knowledge - it kind of related to knowledge acquiring
- Possible effects of the phenomena remain unclear in the real world (many factors were at play)
- Other than natural occurrences, human factor also play a part (pilot faults, miscommunication)
-
-
Even though the truth cannot be determined, scientists still want to prove it that it is explainable (have a reason/meaning with solid evidence)
-
-
-
Changes in ocean circulation likely causing the blooms to hang around in the water for longer, turning the SBUS into an attractive buffet for the whales
-
-
-
-
-
But it is almost impossible as everyone's mind work differently, perceive differently
Sometimes the process of searching of meaning of an art differ from artist to artist - some already had a clear vision in the beginning, some find it after the art finish, some is in between
Every art has different meaning (its own) - some are deep, some are not