Re: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Piers Cawley <pdcawley-scr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard Marr <Richard.Marr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

a> on 5/4/02 3:40 am, jo walsh at jo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> well, yes, it is all bollocks isn't it. 
>> the 'creative'/'rational' dichotomy that infects our industry 
>> and our society is pointless if not counterproductive.
>
> Is there a dichotemy? 

If there is a dichotomy then I assert that it is purely cultural;
perceived rather than actual. I further assert that the gap is
starting to close. There's an awful long way to go though. But people
like Stephen Fry (who, in _Moab is my Washpot_ writes eloquently about
his discovery that maths was beautiful, but not for him, when his
father was coaching him for some exam or another) rejoicing in his
geekiness; Dawkins and Gould getting reviewed seriously in literary
publications; Pratchett's gloriously scattershot approach to cultural
references and jokes about 'Quantum'; even good old Melvyn Bragg
giving scientists a sympathetic ear and asking sensible questions
occasionally on In Our Time are all helping. And they're just the ones
we've all heard of.

Yes, there are reactionary old farts on both sides of the culture gap,
but there are a damn sight more people trying to bridge the gap than
there were when CP Snow first wrote about the 'Two Cultures'.

> Creativity is mutually exclusive with no other factor I can think
> of.
>
> Much as I hate talking about myself, I'm the example I know
> the most about. 
>
> Rational fields : [physics] [programming] [critisism] ...
>
> Creative fields : [graphics] [painting] [writing] [dancing] ...

Surely those sets are subsets of each other (and therefore equal),
you've just chosen two different orderings.

> I'm sure each of you could come up with similar lists, but even in
> the lists themselves there is no dichotemy.
>
> In painting you balance form and play colours off each other, in
> writing you learn patterns and construct points logically to make
> your writing effective.
>
> In physics, without the ability to think creatively you'll never
> have the ability to think much beyond what you've been taught. Can
> anyone honestly say that Einstein's thought experiments weren't
> creative,

A good thought experiment is a thing of beauty and a joy for ever. I'm
always impressed by the way the best of them lead you by the hand,
along a sequence of simple logical steps to some inevitable and
seemingly obvious (yet, in the best examples, utterly mind boggling)
conclusion. The argument at the heart of Turings proof of the
existence of uncomputable functions is a cracker in this vein. A good
mathematical proof has the same quality -- show me someone who doesn't
think Cantor's Diagonalization is beautiful and I'll show you someone
who doesn't understand it yet. 

And there's the rub. Very often the underpinning knowledge required to
'get' a thought experiment is non-trivial. Any fool can look at a
Raphael, or a Botticelli, or a Turner and see that it is a fantastic
and beautiful work of art. It doesn't take much to see that
Goldsworthy's amazing, ephemeral nature sculptures are, things of
beauty in their own right and, at the same time, a deep, unspoken,
commentary on the human condition. But there are other things (which I
believe, undoubtedly to be art) which don't quite attract the same
consensus. Are the people who reject Whiteread's House, Picasso's
Guernica, Hirst's Shark and everything Tracy Emin has ever done
ignorant in the same way as those who don't see the beauty in a
satisfying proof? Or are they just idiotic reactionary boors who see
the world through Daily Mail (or, ghod help us, Metro) coloured
glasses? You decide.

> or that Feynman wouldn't have made a good comedian?

I rather think that Feynman would have excelled at whatever he chose
to do. The scientists among us are just lucky he chose to do
Physics. One thinks of his enormously wide ranging contributions to
other fields (I can wholeheartedly recommend _The Feynman Lectures on
Computing_ to anyone who wants to get a handle on what computation is
for instance) and his ability to do new and interesting research in
fields that were 'new' to him (the superfluidity work, the stuff he
was doing that led to his 'map of the cat' story, _Plenty of Room at
the Bottom_), and his phrase making which had a way of cutting right
through to the very heart of the matter -- the devastating 'Reality must
take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be
fooled.' coda to the Challenger Enquiry report stands as a
particularly fine example.

His writing was wonderful too, I particularly treasure his 'Universe
in a glass of wine' meditation, which stands as one of the finest
pieces of writing about the value of a scientific education I think
I'll ever read (sadly it's not in the standard linux fortune file, but
"The stars are made of the same atoms as the earth." is pretty good
too.)

It's a shame he's not still with us.

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?