Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rteeter
From: rteeter@netcom.com (Robert Teeter)
Subject: Re: Quantifying literary progress
Message-ID: <rteeterDE1M9H.CzL@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4159is$l0u@Mars.mcs.com> <418mlk$h6g_002@newsreader.digex.net> <16@eildon.win-uk.net> <MAVERICK.95Aug21141334@deodar.cs.berkeley.edu><41cnga$nbt@Venus.mcs.com> <19@eildon.win-uk.net><rteeterDDswJD.J7p@netcom.com> <25@eildon.win-uk.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 22:53:41 GMT
Lines: 44
Sender: rteeter@netcom18.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32926 sci.cognitive:9308 sci.psychology.theory:461

Alastair Ward (award@eildon.win-uk.net) wrote:

: In reading a scientific paper I would draw a sharp distinction between
whether I : agree with the thesis being presented by the author and
whether the presentation : is rigorous. What I am suggesting is that
something very similar occurs in the : arts. I feel, especially in music,
that a composer is presenting something to us. : We may or may not "agree"
with what he/she is trying to "say".  But the way it is : presented has to
satisfy certain criteria or we will just dismiss it as phoney. 

: I am no more suggesting that we all respond in the same way to a work of
art : than we all agree with a thesis in science. And of course the
ancients were not : wrong to enjoy their art any less than his
contemporaries enjoyed Newton's : theory of gravitation. :  : A.W. 

	OK, but there are some differences between the arts and the
sciences, wouldn't you agree?
	In the sciences, if you advance Theory A to explain Phenomena
X, Y, and Z, and I advance Theory B to explain the same phenomena,
then we can ask other scientists to examine the two theories and
determine logically and objectively which one better explains the
phenomena.  Then, if Theory C comes along and explains the phenomena
in question better than Theories A or B, then we must discard those
theories and follow Theory C, at least until a better one comes along.
	In the arts, there aren't the same kinds of objective standards.
If I like Work of Art A, and you like Work of Art B, we can discuss
their relative merits, and we may even decide that we both like both
works, but there is no way that one can supersede and make worthless
the other in the same way that scientific theories do.  
	There are still standards, of course, and we can see that Joyce,
for example, was able to do more with language, characterization, and
symbolism than Tom Clancy, but it's still possible (if hard to imagine)
for someone to like both.  But it's not logically possible that someone
could simultaneously agree with Newton's and Einstein's theories of
gravity. 
	We can still enjoy ancient works of art every bit as much as
the ancients did (perhaps more so, knowing what came from them), but we
can never agree with scientific theories that have been proved wrong.


-- 
	Robert Teeter
	rteeter@netcom.com

