Art, Science and Sibling Rivalry

Art , Science and Sibling Rivalry

Minnesota Teachers Association Meetings, Duluth, MN 1997

When I learned that I had this opportunity to speak before you about the relationships between art and science I was very pleased for two reasons. First and foremost, there is no subject of greater interest to me. My own history is a blend of these two practices and I have long enjoyed the rich perspectives on life that they have provided me. Secondly, I was gratified to know that concern about the relationship between art and science was now beginning to concern educators such as yourselves.

But, at the same time I wondered why a merging of art and science might be of interest to you only now. Or, more generally, why art and science, are now enjoying a renaissance of sorts within current academic and intellectual culture. There seems to be a kind of therapeutic group hug going on. Evidence of this can be seen in the growing popularity of journals such as Leonardo, which concerns itself with interdisciplinary relations involving art, science, and technology, and in high profile events like the International Workshop on Art and Science which took place a little over three years ago in Vinci, Italy — the birthplace of Leonardo de Vinci. Those that assembled there included scientists, artists, art historians and critics from around the world and from every level of authority with the mission to take a closer look at both the historical links between science and art and the ways in which humans use science and art to better understand nature.

Such interest in the integration of art and science, on your part and on the part of the world at large, however, begs the question as to whether art and science can be integrated at all. And, furthermore, it is even more unclear just what is meant by such ideas as “integration”, “interdisciplinary”, or “rapprochement” when we speak of art and science together. For that matter, what we mean when we use the words “art” and “science”?

For artists and scientists like myself that are down in the well worn trenches where the cross fire between art and science occurs, it is not so certain that there is much common ground held by both art and science together. What overlap does exists often appears to have marginal consequence. For instance; art that uses science and technology, or scientific practices and technological products that have aesthetic attributes, or art as a mode of representation in the service of communicating science to other scientists and to the general public at large.

For starters, I want to make several of my beliefs clear to you. Art and science, in our current culture, are not compatible frameworks of knowledge (I use the term, “knowledge”, to include more than just rational knowledge). Neither are they compatible investigative practices. That is, their methods are distinctly different. Furthermore, they are circumscribed by radically different social expectations and constraints or lack of constraints in the case of art. They have unique social functions. This being said, I want also to make clear to you that I firmly believe that the tensions between these incompatibilities are the sites where art and science can best help each other and where we can best help ourselves. Such sites where rapprochement and productive integration can occur, must occur if we want to ensure for ourselves and our children a future that is both meaningful and grounded in empathy and compassion — a future worth living. I want to start by giving you some background information on why art and science have been and are still viewed as distinct and separate disciplines. Hopefully, this will clarify why we are thinking about this topic in the first place.

We are living in an age of turbulence, uncertainty, and increasing complexity characterized by rapid and interrelated change. I doubt that this is new. Inhabitants of nearly every age have felt similarly about their lives. However, in practically all pre-modern civilizations this turbulence did not include a conflict between art and science. Rather, science (namely pre-critical science) and art were once wide eyed newborns; siblings of an insatiable human curiosity to know and understand human existence. Together they shared a major social purpose which was to unite society through a commonly held transcendental vision of the world which linked the visible to the invisible. Images drawn on cave walls can be seen as symbolically representing not only their view of themselves and their surroundings but also a model of knowledge at the time.ii

Rock painting: From Rhodes, Tassili, Algeria -- 4th or 3rd Millennium, BC
Rock painting: From Rhodes, Tassili, Algeria — 4th or 3rd Millennium, BC
Detail from an Egyptian papyrus of Nespakashuti -- 21st Dynasty
Detail from an Egyptian papyrus of Nespakashuti — 21st Dynasty

In this remote past of ours, culture was a unique whole. A wholeness, not in the terms of power since there existed, of course, clear distinctions “between the culture of power (kings and priests) and the culture of the common folk.” iii Rather, this was a cultural wholeness where myth and religion were intertwined in the needs of ordinary life and the everyday expressions of thoughts and feelings. There existed then a productive embrace between mathematics, astronomy and astrology, natural science, natural philosophy, and alchemy, and the “various forms of art, from rhetoric to the figurative arts, architecture and music — all in a fruitful dialogue with the manual and economic arts, from agriculture to the crafts. Pythagoras [for example] linked the wondrous relations of numbers to the harmony of music, [and] Democritus intuited the existence of atoms [not our modern concept of the atom, of course] … [while] Lucretius gave these ideas impassioned expression in his poetic masterpiece[s].”iv

Even during the Middle Ages, which we often mistakenly characterize as an age of repression and intolerance, this magical flow of convergent ideas and activities continued.

Mid-9th Century Manuscript, Centaur, the Master of Medicine
Mid-9th Century Manuscript, Centaur, the Master of Medicine
11th Century Illustration, Reduction of Dislocations, Appolonius of Citium
11th Century Illustration, Reduction of Dislocations, Appolonius of Citium

Hildegard von Bingen provides us with an excellent example of just such a medieval renaissance woman. In her lifetime (which was during the 11th century) she founded a convent, personally directed its’ construction, corresponded and convened with kings, popes and magistrates, and was considered a prophet and visionary in her own time. In addition, she wrote numerous books on theology, medicine, and the physical sciences along with poetry, musical dramas and nearly eighty vocal compositions. [The music that you have been hearing was composed by her.] What is interesting to me about her story is that she presented herself as a person operating not through her own knowledge, but as the “instrumentum” of God’s will: “The words I speak come from no human mouth, I saw them in visions He sent to me….”v In a contemporary sense, this sounds strangely similar to how artists’ have used inspiration or the muse. In any case, it is a knowledge not based on empirical discovery. In Hildegard von Bingen’s case, and in her era, “true knowledge” came through revelation, not through reason or experimentation.

Early 13th Century, Dissection
Early 13th Century, Dissection
Late 13th Century, Circulatory System, pen and wash on parchment
Late 13th Century, Circulatory System, pen and wash on parchment
15th Century, Limb Transplantation Miracle by Saints Cosmos and Damian, Swabian wood panel painting
15th Century, Limb Transplantation Miracle by Saints Cosmos and Damian, Swabian wood panel painting
15th Century painting, Saint Catherine exorcising a possessed woman by Girolamo di Benvenuto
15th Century painting, Saint Catherine exorcising a possessed woman by Girolamo di Benvenuto
The Cure of Folley or Removing the Stone of Madness, 1490, Hieronymus Bosch
The Cure of Folley or Removing the Stone of Madness, 1490, Hieronymus Bosch
The Physician Curing Fantasy, 16th Century engraving, Matthäus Greuter
The Physician Curing Fantasy, 16th Century engraving, Matthäus Greuter
The Anatomical Man, Limbourg Brothers - The Zodiac and the body
The Anatomical Man, Limbourg Brothers, ca. 1416 – The Zodiac and the body
Childbirth, 1544, Jost Amman, illustration from De conceptu et generationis, by Jacob Rueff
Childbirth, 1544, Jost Amman, illustration from De conceptu et generationis, by Jacob Rueff
Medieval Scientists; astronomer (with astrolabe), mathematician, and clerk
Medieval Scientists; astronomer (with astrolabe), mathematician, and clerk, from Psalter of Saint Louis and Blanche of Castile, 13th century
Ptolemy Using a Quadrant to Measure the Altitude of the Moon, Gregor Resich, 16th Century Manuscript
Ptolemy Using a Quadrant to Measure the Altitude of the Moon, Gregor Resich, 16th Century Manuscript

With the influence of Islamic thought and, subsequently, Aristotelianism, a new wave of medieval thinking in Europe emerged and grew. What resulted was a full bloom of creativity and investigation — the Renaissance. It is during the Renaissance that we can most clearly see art and science as emerging personalities informing each other in very productive ways and in an environment that fostered creative interchange as never before.

Leon Battista Alberti, a Florentine architect and humanist, embodies an early renaissance synthesis of art, architecture, music, philosophy and scientific inquiry. Alberti, along with the painters Paolo Uccello and Piero della Francesca “discovered and expounded the rules of geometric perspective.”vi

Facade of Saint Andrea Mantua, Designed 1490, Alberti
Facade of Saint Andrea Mantua, Designed 1490, Alberti
Inside View of Saint Andrea Mantua, Designed 1490, Alberti
Inside View of Saint Andrea Mantua, Designed 1490, Alberti
Flagellation of Christ, 1458-60, Pierro della Francessco
Flagellation of Christ, 1458-60, Pierro della Francessco
The Battle of Saint Romano, 1455, Paolo Uccello
The Battle of Saint Romano, 1455, Paolo Uccello
Deluge, 1445-46, Paolo Uccello
Deluge, 1445-46, Paolo Uccello
Chalice, Paolo Uccello
Chalice, Paolo Uccello, 1430
from the Good Government fresco, 13th Century, Lorenzetti
from the Good Government fresco, 13th Century, Lorenzetti

In these paintings we see not only the inspiration of creativity by the artist but also expressions of the anatomical explorations of the eye then being learned through dissection and hypotheses on the laws governing light newly discovered through studies of geometrical optics. Meanwhile, scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, were discovering the laws of planetary movement while still maintaining a magical and holistic view of the universe. Kepler, for instance, believed in the rigorous harmony of the motions of the heavenly bodies, which appeared to him to be divine — exemplified in the titles to his major works: The Cosmic Mystery, Celestial Physics, and the Harmonies of the World.

Torso, drawing, Leonardo da Vinci
Torso, drawing, Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1507
Human Foetus, pen and ink drawing, Leonardo da Vinci
Human Foetus, pen and ink drawing, Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1511
Human Foetus, pen and ink drawing, Leonardo da Vinci
Human Foetus, pen and ink drawing, Leonardo da Vinci, c.1511
Anatomical Dissections: Nervous System and Arterial System, 17th Century
Anatomical Dissections: Nervous System and Arterial System, 17th Century

And, of course, Leonardo Da Vinci. His life and works, illustrate best the paradigm of the synthesis of different kinds of learning. Here was the coexistence of a scientist, engineer, painter, architect, scholar, and writer within one person, par excellence. And his life is rightly held to be the eternal emblem of the humanistic spirit, embodying Alberti’s moto: [that] “Men can do all things, if they will.”vii

This background now brings me to a critical historical moment in this narrative about the relationship between art and science. This is a moment of radical “paradigm shift” which, in my view, irrevocably separated science from art.

Illustration of a Medieval Cosmology
Illustration of a Medieval Cosmology, from Breviari D’amor, c. 1290

A cosmology that once seemed purposeful, harmonious, and conditioned by a perfect and changeless God was, in the late 16th and 17th centuries, utterly destroyed when it was realized that the heliocentric cosmology of Copernicus had hurled earth into infinite space.

Ptolemy’s System, from Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andrea Cellarius
Ptolemy’s System, from Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andrea Cellarius, 1660
The System of Copernicus, from Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andrea Cellarius
The System of Copernicus, from Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andrea Cellarius, 1660

This was the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, and, in time, it inverted the relationship which heretofore had ourselves central to both God and nature. In the words of the late Viennese philosopher and historian of science, Karl Popper:

“The name “God” was replaced by the name “Nature.” Theology, the science of God, was replaced by the science of Nature. The laws of God were replaced by the laws of Nature. God’s power was replaced by the forces of Nature. And at a later date, God’s Theological determinism was replaced by scientific determinism and the book of fate by the predictability of Nature. In short, God’s omnipotence and omniscience were replaced by the omnipotence of nature and by the virtual omniscience of natural science.”viii

Nature became just another object of study and science, or natural science was to methodically explore it and conquer it. The scientist, who once saw reason and revelation as inseparable and who accepted spiritual and divine forces as both real and necessary, was now placed “outside” of nature as an impartial observer whose goal was to attain “pure knowledge.” Sir Francis Bacon, the first in a line of great British empiricists, responded to the moto of Alberti with: “Men can do all things, provided they obey the laws of nature,” and provided that they know those laws!” This should give us a moment of pause to ask where art is in this picture now!

A critical analysis of nature now became the charge of science. This is not to say that holism was not still of interest to scientists. Newton, one of sciences’ greatest empiricists, believed that nature was God’s sensorium and, as it turns out, he was a serious, alchemist — albeit, he kept his alchemy under wraps. What is important for my purposes here is to point out that, as part of this emerging dogma of science, inspiration, emotion and creativity were de-emphasized in favor of reason and logical necessity. Scientific societies emerged to coordinate an intellectual and social transformation based on the prescripts of scientific practice and no facet of intellectual or daily life was unaffected. Furthermore, by distancing science from religion — science was placed on a fast track of positivism and instrumental rationality resulting in our current world of technology governed by scientific social planning and management.ix With an increase in the power and authority of science went the decline of the influence and authority of art. Into the dust bin of history went the once corroborative and mutually respectful relationship between science and art.

Walcot’s Instant Pain Annihilator, 1863, colored lithograph
Walcot’s Instant Pain Annihilator, 1863, colored lithograph

The Scientific Revolution left in its’ wake what C.P. Snow, the British novelist and scientist, labeled as “the two cultures” — the culture of science and the culture of the arts and humanities.x One of my favorite commentaries on this rupture was made by Nietzsche who wrote in his usual Dionysian way: “I left the house of science and slammed the door behind me.” The differences between these two cultures and the relevance of those differences to us today are what I wish to address next. And, I will separate my remarks regarding the differences between art and science with respect to their separate methods, aims, and social functions.

Being artists and art educators, you are very familiar with the methods of artists. Science is a different animal altogether. In practice, science is conducted through deductive procedures that seek regularity and are bound to a pre-ordained list of operating rules. This “scientific method” refers to the specification of steps which must be taken, in a given order, to achieve a given end. These steps will vary with the outcome sought and on the variety of ways of achieving it. All of which depends on whether the end is to be the conquest of nature or the discovery of truth. Underlying all of this is a required fidelity to empirical evidence and to a simplicity of logical formulation.xi Science, as I am describing it here, is a practice whereby fact gathering and critical analysis ostensibly leads to truth — a truth that must be shown using a general form of a proof.

If this sounds a bit sterile and strange to us artists, it should, because the practice of art has little in common with the scientific method. Here are a few more operational attributes of the scientific practice. Science is arguably a progressive, rational dialog with nature. And this progression is monitored by tests that compare the facts and theories obtained by the scientific method with objective reality. For instance, any hypothesis about the world must be verifiable or testable. That is, there must be rational or experimental ways of determining if it is true or false. As well, these same theories must be falsifiable or refutable, meaning that there must be at least one way of showing and knowing if and when a false conclusion is reached. Furthermore, scientific progression is conservative. Each new truth about the world must submit itself to a comparison with the history of knowledge that precedes it. To be allowed into the pantheon of knowledge, it must explain experience equally or better than the “truths” that it supplants.

I once heard it put by a theologian that scientific thinking is “testing, questing, never resting.” Most artists that I know, including myself, do not operate like scientists. Although I may mix my paints in certain prescribed ways, I generally do not make art according to prescribed art-making rules. Rather, I have my way of working and it is valuable because it is unique. In science, of course, each scientist must practice in the same way, otherwise, no two empirical facts can be compared on equal bases. Art is mechanistic primarily in its’ reliance on tools and technology and in the attention that artists must give to the materials that they use. What I make, however, does not have to conform to reality. I have yet to throw away a work of my art because it is not verifiable or because it fails to adequately explain objective reality. In fact, artists sometimes make art that promotes the very false concepts and unreal or impossible fantasies that science does its’ best to rationally eliminate. If art can be said to be, in part, a matter of the heart, then Blaise Pascal, the 16th century mathematician and philosopher, has said it best when he observed that “the heart has its reason which reason does not know.” I think that Hildegarde von Bingen still lies deep with in the heart of the artist.

But there are some practical overlaps. Interpolation, extrapolation, speculation, intuition, problem solving, creativity, and passion to name a few. These are actions and expressions that the practices of science and art do share. Take creativity and passion. Science is not simply cold, deductive calculation. That is inhuman. I have known plenty of very creative scientists. And some areas of science that are highly theoretical or speculative necessitate creativity. Piling one fact on top of another does not automatically result in a hypothesis or theory — creative thinking is involved. Besides, the scientific method begins first with a problem to solve and this is a very creative feat indeed!

Passion. Passion for knowledge and understanding, I think that this is what urges the scientist to continue hacking her way through the jungle of nature. It is a passion that is evident especially when ignorance or superstition impedes their way. Simply remember the passion on all fronts over what can be fairly termed the Revolution of Evolution that Darwin began. Science without passion is sheer drudgery.

“Darwin head and monkey body”, engraving, 1800's
“Darwin head and monkey body”, engraving, 1800’s

Art without creativity and passion…well, what can you say. For me, they are the life blood of any art worth experiencing and the more excessive, expressive and unbounded with wonder and enthusiasm the better.

So, what can be said about the aims of science and art? Are they seeking knowledge, understanding, beauty, conflict, or even power? In my estimation, they seek all of the above. But, they do so, again, in their own unique ways. That both science and art seek a knowledge and understanding of the world and human existence seems undeniable. This is, after all, the origin of their shared heritage. That both seek beauty is equally undeniable when one considers beauty as an attribute of a well crafted theorem, an elegant experiment, a harmonious relationship, or a wonderous discovery.

But, conflict and power seem less obvious. As I mentioned previously, science, as a practice, requires encounter, confrontation, and even conflict as means to critique any idea. And, art utilizes conflicts towards certain ends as well. One need only consider the strategies of conflict prevalent in the art the past 25 years — the institutional critiques of Hans Haake, Michael Asher, and the Guerilla Girls, or the conflicts over authorship intentionally brought on by the Appropriationists of the 80’s, or the more recent conflicts over the rights of representation played out with Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and the fundamentalist Right.

Guerilla Girls poster
Guerilla Girls poster, 1989
Self Portrait, 1988, Robert Mapplethorpe
Self Portrait, 1988, Robert Mapplethorpe
Klansman (Great Titan of the Invisible Empire), 1990, Andres Serrano
Klansman (Great Titan of the Invisible Empire), 1990, Andres Serrano
Piss Christ, 1989, Andres Serrano
Piss Christ, 1989, Andres Serrano

For me, this is one of the wonderful attributes of the art culture — that conflict is tolerated and encouraged. It is through such conflict that I gain a greater appreciation of the inner and outer chaos of my life.

As for power as an aim of science, I defer to Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel laureate in physics, who has noted that “Classical science always assumes that it is faced with a monotonously stupid world….The more nature is diminished, the more are those outside of nature exalted.”xii Omniscience and omnipotence are linked concepts, especially in our present day western culture where scientists have risen to the statis of demigods. One word, Einstein. Comparatively speaking, the power that artists seek — persuasive power or stardom — is quite weak when matched up with the power that science and scientists currently wield. But, power of some kind seems to me to be a general desire for most disciplines — if not a large number of people.

Which brings me to considerations of the social functions of art and science in today’s society. Clearly, science and art are socially separate. This is not only because they create this separation themselves. Most scientists ignore the findings of artists, and most artists have little liking for the sciences (this is clearly at odds with the renaissance ideals that I mentioned previously). They are also socially separate because our society has prioritized science over art as a perceived matter of cultural, political, and biological survival. Scientists are implicitly given a leading role in society because they are expected to anticipate change — not only in relation to nature, but with respect to society as well.xiii And, in this ever increasingly complex world of ours, predicting when and where change occurs is quite valuable. In contrast, we do not value art for its’ powers of prediction. Art may be visionary or futuristic, but it is not particularly reliable as a predictor of things to come. Art is, instead, valued for its’ evocative power to reflect our deepest impulses and for its’ aesthetic sensibilities which brings the contemplation of beauty to the stage. Although this should be reason enough to justify public financial support for artists, it is not. And, isn’t this one of the rubs of any practical attempt at reproaching science and art — money? Neither scientists nor artists live without it. And, in a society which shares its’ wealth so inequitably between science and art, is it any wonder that there is significantly more interest on the part of artists in working together with scientists than there is on the part of scientists working together with artists.

Society has made an investment choice. Science is more important than art. Consequently, society has radically different expectations for science than it does for art. Art, excluding commercial art, is done voluntarily with no expectation, on the part of society, for a return from the artist. On the other hand, science has, in a certain sense, a covenant with society wherein some kind of return is expected. This could be an improvement in living conditions or a betterment of public health. This covenant also requires that science conform to societies’ mores and customs. For instance, regulations regarding what can be used for experimentation, and how and where that experimentation can be conducted. Art does not, nor should not have any such obligations, at least in western societies. There are no Hippocratic Oaths that artists must take when they graduate from art school. Artists are given free reign to say and think what they will. Manipulation and transgression are every bit as much part of the artists’ tool bag as consensus building and praise. And to destabilize the reassuring certainties of science, as Deconstructive criticism has done in our post-modern era, is to everyone’s benefit. It generates interest and it often leads to new and improved certainties — which, of course are then subject to dismantling. Scientific truths must be able to withstand criticism from every realm of knowledge — the art world not withstanding. And, I think that we create a more capable and resilient society as a result.

Gerry’s Sputnik Fails to Launch, 1994, Gerald Smith (Film)
Gerry’s Sputnik Fails to Launch, 1994, Gerald Smith (Film)

Lastly, allow me to point to one of the most pernicious consequences of the Scientific Revolution: an increasingly relentless division of society and knowledge into more and smaller specializations. In science, this is truly out of necessity since our constructed edifice of facts about ourselves and the universe is so huge that no one could ever know or understand much of it at once. Yet, this patch work of authorities, and disjointed understandings has left most of us alienated from everything. To be intellectually whole, we must, like Spock in Star Trek, mind-meld with the community at large — through the Internet, perhaps? But to be emotionally and spiritually whole, we have a diminishing number of alternatives. Since the Scientific Revolution society has prioritized knowledge over emotion, and we have become empty, analytical shells as a result. I believe that this could be reason enough for our renewed interest in the renaissance ideal of the re-integrated scientist or artist, citizen or student. I agree fully with what Donald Geesaman, a former nuclear physicist at the University of Minnesota, has stated:

…we live in a social condition distinguished by information instead of wisdom, consensus instead of intelligence, euphemism instead of awareness, service instead of competence, dependence instead of responsibility.
Much of our social and physical state is a shadow thrown across our lives by our technologies. From conception to death our lives are becoming mere technological artifacts. We are possessed, subjugated, exiled.xiv

Could this be reason enough for our renewed interest in holism? Is this alienation, intuitively or expressly what interests us today in the renaissance ideal of the re-integrated scientist or artist, citizen or student?

So, now I must ask you; if science and art, the creative siblings of our human quest for knowledge and understanding, are now such distant and competitive relatives, is there any possibility or place for their rapprochement? In other words, are interdisciplinary school curricula really worth pursuing?

Yes, of course. A modern alliance between art and science is occurring in some sectors and we should be aware of it and prepared to participate in it. How this is done successfully in a classroom, I don’t know. I hope that you do know. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it in school. My petition to you, however, is to first know what art and science really mean before you engage in a dialogue about them. And, most importantly, that you impress upon your students the importance of creative, critical thinking. You will likely not object to encouraging creativity in your students. But, being critical, in its’ positive sense, is a skill that any budding artist wanting to taste science too will need.

As for myself, I am not too troubled by the current gulf between science and art. Art, particularly contemporary art, interests me precisely because of its’ differences with science, not because of its similarities with science. Art helps me see and understand the world in ways that science cannot. I like the way that the poet Erica Jong has put it:

People think they can do without poetry. And they can. At least until they fall in love, lose a friend, lose a child, or a parent, or lose their way in the dark woods of life. People think they can live without poetry. And they can. At least until they become fatally ill, have a baby, or fall desperately, madly, in love.”xv

In an ironic sort of way, science too often flattens and impoverishes my world by its penchant to reduce and simplify and stuff me with so much information that I can’t breath. I need art to help me re-discover the worlds’ rich density and to reconnect me with the stuff that science has abstracted almost beyond recognition. Through art we have one of those few remaining alternatives for achieving a wholeness in spirit and in thought. In the case of science and art, sibling rivalry is healthy, so lets keep it.

GERALD SMITH
APRIL, 1997

  1. Many of the papers presented during this conference are reproduced in World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 40, 1994 and Leonardo, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1996.
  2. See George Coppel, “Equivocal Links between Art and Science: When Strictness Sleeps, Words Engender Epistemological Monsters” World Futures:The Journal of General Evolution, 40, 1994, pp. 203-5.
  3. Umberto Colombo, “Science and Art” World Futures; The Journal of General Evolution, Vol. 40, 1994, pp. 1-5.
  4. Ibid., p. 2.
  5. Hildegard Von Bingen, Ordo virtutum, Sequentia, deutche harmonia mundi, 1982/1992 compact disk liner notes. pp., 12-13.
  6. Colombo, p. 2.
  7. Ilya Prigogine, “Science, Reason and Passion” Leonardo, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1996, p. 39.
  8. Karl Popper, “Science: Problems, Aims, Responsibilities” in The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, M.A. Notturno (Ed.), Routledge, London, 1994, pp. 82-83.
  9. See Kinhide Mushakoji, “From Technocracy Back to Humanism” World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, Vol. 40, pp. 75-81.
  10. See C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, 1959.
  11. See The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7, Paul Edwards (ed. in chief), Scientific Method, p.339.
  12. Ilya Prigogine and I. Stentgers, “La Nouvelle Alliance — Metamorphose de la Science”, Paris, Gallimard, pp. 58 and 60 (free translation) in Pierre Spitz, “Art(s) and Science(s): A Few Concluding Remarks” World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, Vol. 40, p. 169.
  13. See “Conference Overview: The Relation between Art and Science” E.B. Masisi, Leonardo, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 19.
  14. “Advice to Science Students” 1974, Donald P. Geesaman, Ph.D., in Readings on Science, Technology and Purpose, prepared for the 1982-83 Midcareer Seminar: Education for Reflective Leadership, H.H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, pp. xiv-xv, unpublished.
  15. In “The Necessity for Poetry” by Erica Jong, 1996 in In their own voices: 100 years of poetry reading, 1996, compact disk liner notes p. 18.
Scroll to Top