From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <49o5ruFpis5pU4@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org>
wrote:

On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:

Jim wrote:

Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science
teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.

Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.

My one and only contribution to this thread: <http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>

Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.

Yay and Nay, and it is such and over-determined division[1] but I think
this a really interesting topic for and about Mac users now.

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime
site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

The UCSM CLI v UI debates passim might bear on this, but I think it goes
much deeper.

Personally, I'm really interested. I'm an an Arts background
materialist; A frequent CLI dabbler who rants about UI aesthetics,
seduction and useability; Someone who has a deep respect for science
even as I doubt science as ideology [2].

Obviously, I have my own thoughts on this, but it strikes me that UCSM
is a synecdoche of both the Two Cultures and of a crossing of the two,
at times.

So, I'm interested in people's positions, arguments and values about
this - particularly values, as I can't see how scientists can mount an argument about value without entering into the realm of the Humanities.

Giles
[1] As we used to say in our old psychoanalaytic-Marxist days.
[2] E.g. crossing the description/prescription boundary.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-07 23:58:01 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

In article <49o5ruFpis5pU4@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

My one and only contribution to this thread:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>

Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.

Yay and Nay, and it is such and over-determined division[1] but I think
this a really interesting topic for and about Mac users now.

Interested in whether you've read the essay. The author makes the point
about over-determined divisions himself, and points out that he is
using this as a generalisation and illustration rather than as a
statement of fact (ie. "consider two cultures" rather than "there are
exactly two cultures").

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime
site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

I must say that I already use it as such. My background is technical -
been messing around programming computers since I was nine years old,
and worked as a professional developer, with various titles attached to
me, since leaving university in 1992. I was using Linux commercially by
1996, and have stayed mostly on Unix and Java development ever since.

Now, there are people on this group who's experience differs wildly
from that. I think that's good - it means I can pick up things from
what they're saying and doing, and hopefully I'll be able to contribute something for them given my background as well. But it's more than just
a help group, it's -interesting-.

Obviously, I have my own thoughts on this, but it strikes me that UCSM
is a synecdoche of both the Two Cultures and of a crossing of the two,
at times.

I would agree with this entirely. And that's definitely a good thing.



Cheers,
Ian

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <49o9uiFprl1vU1@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org>
wrote:

On 2006-04-07 23:58:01 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

In article <49o5ruFpis5pU4@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

My one and only contribution to this thread:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>

Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.

Yay and Nay, and it is such and over-determined division[1] but I think this a really interesting topic for and about Mac users now.

Interested in whether you've read the essay. The author makes the point about over-determined divisions himself, and points out that he is
using this as a generalisation and illustration rather than as a
statement of fact (ie. "consider two cultures" rather than "there are exactly two cultures").

I have read it, wholly and in part, a few times, although I haven't gone
back to it for some years. I did and do disagree with it in parts,
although I'd have to have a re-read to be precise. But I would certainly agree, should you venture such an opinion, that it has become, for
those lazy of thought, a synonym for a fundamental divide.

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

I must say that I already use it as such.

Eh?

My background is technical -
been messing around programming computers since I was nine years old,
and worked as a professional developer, with various titles attached to
me, since leaving university in 1992. I was using Linux commercially by 1996, and have stayed mostly on Unix and Java development ever since.

Exactly - I was 'just' a user, and mostly still am, but more and more
find myself delving into the CLI to get things I want to try out or get
set up and use. It is still primarily about functionality rather than an abstract interest in code, but there is a least an asymptopic
convergence.

Now, there are people on this group who's experience differs wildly
from that. I think that's good - it means I can pick up things from
what they're saying and doing, and hopefully I'll be able to contribute something for them given my background as well. But it's more than just
a help group, it's -interesting-.

It is indeed.

Obviously, I have my own thoughts on this, but it strikes me that UCSM
is a synecdoche of both the Two Cultures and of a crossing of the two,
at times.

I would agree with this entirely. And that's definitely a good thing.

Oh yes.

Giles
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-08 01:04:54 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

In article <49o9uiFprl1vU1@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

On 2006-04-07 23:58:01 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime >>> site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

I must say that I already use it as such.

Eh?

What I meant by that is that with a Mac, I don't concentrate on the
purely functional. I don't -ignore- the purely functional, for example
I have several nasty'ish Perl scripts doing various nightly tasks which
no-one could call art, but I exepct more from my machines these days.

I both appreciate its extreme techiness at times (the Unix layer,
emulation, X11 etc) while at other times I allow the techiness to wash
over me and use it as an appliance (the iLife apps, etc.). It's already
a place for me where the two sides mix quite freely. It's also very interesting listening to people with non-technical backgrounds talk
about it. By non-technical I really mean non-computer science - these
people are often highly technical in their own field and that's what
makes in interesting.

Consider all the talk about cameras on here, for example. 90% of it way
above what I care about for my camera. Point, click, snap, the end.
Very little knowledge about the field. But on this group, there are
clearly people with a -lot- of knowledge about the field so I read what
they have to say. What's interesting is that it's not really off-topic
either way: if your Mac is really an adjunct to your photography, then
clearly talking about photography on uk.comp.sys.mac is fair game. Yet
I can come on and star asking subversion source control or
postgresql-based questions, and they're not off-topic either. That's
quite a gulf, but it's all happily contained in a fairly rambling group
that still somehow works well.


Cheers,
Ian

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

On 2006-04-08 01:04:54 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

In article <49o9uiFprl1vU1@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org>

wrote:

On 2006-04-07 23:58:01 +0100, Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> said:

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and >>> its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime >>> site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

I must say that I already use it as such.

Eh?

What I meant by that is that with a Mac, I don't concentrate on the
purely functional. I don't -ignore- the purely functional, for example
I have several nasty'ish Perl scripts doing various nightly tasks which no-one could call art, but I exepct more from my machines these days.

I come from very much the arts end of the ucsm spectrum. I have always
taken an interest in science, but very much for what I could glean for
artistic purposes. There's no denying that for me Macs have a
particular appeal for me because of the more attractive GUI, and the way
it all works.

However, it is diving into the waves of chat on this group that has
encouraged me to try and look deeper into it, for example investigate
the Terminal. I know full well that I'm never going to 'get' this stuff
and learn it much beyond 'top', but it seems to me that there is
something more than simply scientific going on with it. But I suppose
the difference between it and a spoken language is that one letter in
the wrong place will cause things either to not function at all, or to
go horribly wrong, whereas there is more leeway with the other. [1] It
is probably that precision which prevents me going further with it.

I both appreciate its extreme techiness at times (the Unix layer,
emulation, X11 etc) while at other times I allow the techiness to wash
over me and use it as an appliance (the iLife apps, etc.). It's already
a place for me where the two sides mix quite freely. It's also very interesting listening to people with non-technical backgrounds talk
about it. By non-technical I really mean non-computer science - these
people are often highly technical in their own field and that's what
makes in interesting.

It's also the exchange of ideas which is important. I am pretty much of
a gannet when it comes to new information, and I have learned an
enormous amount just reading here.

Consider all the talk about cameras on here, for example. 90% of it way
above what I care about for my camera. Point, click, snap, the end.
Very little knowledge about the field. But on this group, there are
clearly people with a -lot- of knowledge about the field so I read what
they have to say. What's interesting is that it's not really off-topic
either way: if your Mac is really an adjunct to your photography, then clearly talking about photography on uk.comp.sys.mac is fair game.

Phew. Vindicated! :-)


[1] Ok, mixing up 'not' and 'now' could be a disaster...

--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

However, it is diving into the waves of chat on this group that has encouraged me to try and look deeper into it, for example investigate
the Terminal. I know full well that I'm never going to 'get' this stuff
and learn it much beyond 'top', but it seems to me that there is
something more than simply scientific going on with it.

That's nothing to do with science, it's technology. Which is also an interesting and worthwhile thing to know about.

Daniele
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

Ok, mixing up 'not' and 'now' could be a disaster...

One of Clive's favourite typos. Along with leaving off the "n't" on such
words as "couldn't", "didn't" and so on. It means reading and
interpreting his posts often takes real brain effort, because he either
means what's he's written, or the opposite, or a combination.

--
Pd
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

However, it is diving into the waves of chat on this group that has encouraged me to try and look deeper into it, for example investigate
the Terminal. I know full well that I'm never going to 'get' this stuff and learn it much beyond 'top', but it seems to me that there is
something more than simply scientific going on with it.

That's nothing to do with science, it's technology. Which is also an interesting and worthwhile thing to know about.

Hmm, I think technology is at the crossroads of art and science.
<discuss>

--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1hdhgmv.7u7qa21il0x58N%me9@privacy.net>,
me9@privacy.net (Bella Jones) wrote:

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

However, it is diving into the waves of chat on this group that
has encouraged me to try and look deeper into it, for example investigate the Terminal. I know full well that I'm never going
to 'get' this stuff and learn it much beyond 'top', but it seems
to me that there is something more than simply scientific going
on with it.

You can grok it. It's really not all that complicated and there are
general patterns and standards to make it somewhat simpler.
Unfortunately there are no Human Interface Guidelines for the command
line, and those common patters and standards are not universal.

That's nothing to do with science, it's technology. Which is also
an interesting and worthwhile thing to know about.

Hmm, I think technology is at the crossroads of art and science.
<discuss>

Heh. Technology is the tangible interface between science and people.

The command line in Terminal is certainly more than science. It has
been imbued with needs and attitudes of the people wrote the programs
that can be invoked, like ls, top, cp, mv, cat, more, less and the
thousands of other programs that are built in to OS X's Unix-y
underpinnings. So there is an aspect of psychology in the use of
acronyms (cp = copy a file, mv = moving a file to a new name or location
in the directory tree, etc) and humor in recursive acronyms (pine = pine
is not elm, GNU = Gnu's Not Unix) etc.

Human fingerprint are all over this stuff, whereas science searches for objective knowledge and tries to minimize or eliminate the human
fingerprints that might distort understanding. Technology is science
made useful.

The command line is not necessary to make excellent use of OS X. I know
how to use the command line to an extent, but probably only have
recourse to it a few times a year. The command line is powerful and you
can do things that can't be done in the GUI; on the other hand the GUI
is powerful in simplifying demands on the user and all but eliminating problems caused by typos.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <usenet.giles-0575CA.23580107042006@individual.net>,
Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <49o5ruFpis5pU4@individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> >wrote:

On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:

Jim wrote:

Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >> >> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.

Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing
animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.

My one and only contribution to this thread:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>

Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.

Yay and Nay, and it is such and over-determined division[1] but I think
this a really interesting topic for and about Mac users now.

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime
site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

No. The Mac's base with "creatives" is not with fine artists or literary intellectuals, but with commercial artists. The type of intellectual Snow was criticizing would likely have no more use for commercial artists than scientists.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

However, it is diving into the waves of chat on this group that has encouraged me to try and look deeper into it, for example investigate
the Terminal. I know full well that I'm never going to 'get' this stuff and learn it much beyond 'top', but it seems to me that there is something more than simply scientific going on with it.

That's nothing to do with science, it's technology. Which is also an interesting and worthwhile thing to know about.

Hmm, I think technology is at the crossroads of art and science.

Technology long precedes science, and is pretty much independent of it.
Science doesn't really get going until really quite late, with people
like Descartes and Galileo, who have a vision of a unified mathematical description of nature.

There have been very advanced technological cultures (the Chinese and
the Romans for example) which had no science. In the absence of science
you can get very far indeed, but what you don't get are powerful
abstract explanations of phenomena along with ability to model them mathematically. So the Romans built amazing bridges and buildings, but
didn't know enough about mechanics to predict or explain what was going
on inside them that made them stay up or fall down.

The best account I've read of the distinction between science and
technology is in Lewis Wolpert's _The Unnatural Nature of Science_,
which I think is a superb contribution to the understanding of science
(despite having some extremely annoying prejudice-airing in the middle).

Daniele
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime
site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

It's not a relatively new Unix friendly science appeal. The Mac has
always been around in science. About eight or nine years ago an Italian scientist friend of mine was amazed to hear that in Britain the Mac was
most visible in design; in Italy, she said, Macs were used by all the scientists.

Daniele
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:13:16 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime
site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

It's not a relatively new Unix friendly science appeal. The Mac has
always been around in science. About eight or nine years ago an Italian >scientist friend of mine was amazed to hear that in Britain the Mac was
most visible in design; in Italy, she said, Macs were used by all the >scientists.

A dozen years ago when I was working as a computational chemist for a
big pharma co, we used SGIs and Macs almost exclusively for
user-facing stuff. The backends where more SGIs, VAXen and the
occasional Cray. The IT department used OS/2 and Macs.

Fun stuff.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
'The fact that medieval England referred to buggery as "the foul and disgusting crime against nature" shows a sadly deficient knowledge of
the foul and disgusting, not to mention of crimes against nature.'
- From "Buggery and the British Navy" by Arthur Gilbert
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:57:47 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

A dozen years ago when I was working as a computational chemist for a
big pharma co, we used SGIs and Macs almost exclusively for
user-facing stuff. The backends where more SGIs, VAXen and the
occasional Cray. The IT department used OS/2 and Macs.

I feel I ought to make some point about scientific research being the
domain of creative types, as well. In white coats, preferably.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
In most timelines, the many-worlds hypothesis is held to be obviously false
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:

The best account I've read of the distinction between science and
technology is in Lewis Wolpert's _The Unnatural Nature of Science_,
which I think is a superb contribution to the understanding of science (despite having some extremely annoying prejudice-airing in the middle).

That's okay; I can take Lewis's prejudices any day. Partly because I
share most of them, but mainly because he's always open to reasoned
opposition.
--
Peter
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:44:01 +0100, Peter Ceresole wrote
(in article <1hdkvv9.1poc2hv5d8tcaN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>):

That's okay; I can take Lewis's prejudices any day. Partly because I
share most of them, but mainly because he's always open to reasoned opposition.

Ditto. I've got his latest book, Six Impossible Things Before
Breakfast, sitting here in the "to read" pile.

Ian

--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <NvadnXyDsskVLKTZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article <usenet.giles-0575CA.23580107042006@individual.net>,
Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime >site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

No. The Mac's base with "creatives" is not with fine artists or literary intellectuals, but with commercial artists. The type of intellectual Snow was
criticizing would likely have no more use for commercial artists than scientists.

Have you been anywhere near fine artists lately? Indeed, read any
'art-speak' intellectuals lately? I can assure you that the field is thoroughly imbued with Macs and with outpourings about the digital and
has been for quite some time.

Literary intellectuals, I wouldn't be so sure about, but there seem to
be plenty of ranked authors who let slip about their Mac or Powerbook in interviews.

A randomly selected East End artist's studio is more likely to contain a
Mac for DV or Audio work than any canvas or paint. (Of course, some
contain both, just to confuse the head count).

Giles
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1hdkpd0.b0k9lo129c5rwN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and
its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

It's not a relatively new Unix friendly science appeal. The Mac has
always been around in science. About eight or nine years ago an Italian scientist friend of mine was amazed to hear that in Britain the Mac was
most visible in design; in Italy, she said, Macs were used by all the scientists.

Fair enough, and given the OS 8.6 system that was on telly yesterday
recording and crossmatching Humpbacked Whale noises, I see no reason to
argue - assuming an -ology counts as a science as well as the -ics and
the -tries.

So, strike the 'relatively new UNIX friendly' and the 'now' from my
initial comment, but otherwise leave it whole.

Giles
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <usenet.giles-18A773.19323010042006@individual.net>,
Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <NvadnXyDsskVLKTZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article <usenet.giles-0575CA.23580107042006@individual.net>,
Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Given the Mac's traditional base with 'creatives' (horrible word) and >its relatively new UNIX friendly science appeal, is the Mac now a prime >site for a Two Cultures style debate/mutual misunderstanding?

No. The Mac's base with "creatives" is not with fine artists or literary intellectuals, but with commercial artists. The type of intellectual Snow was
criticizing would likely have no more use for commercial artists than scientists.

Have you been anywhere near fine artists lately? Indeed, read any 'art-speak' intellectuals lately? I can assure you that the field is thoroughly imbued with Macs and with outpourings about the digital and
has been for quite some time.

Literary intellectuals, I wouldn't be so sure about, but there seem to
be plenty of ranked authors who let slip about their Mac or Powerbook in interviews.

A randomly selected East End artist's studio is more likely to contain a
Mac for DV or Audio work than any canvas or paint. (Of course, some
contain both, just to confuse the head count).

Giles

Also on the artistic/creative side, the audio recording industry sees
plenty of Mac activity! There's fuel enough for a whole nother
discussion there :)

Happy computing,
Eric
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:18:10 +0100, Peter Ceresole wrote
(in article <1hdjdiz.glou7724fs43N%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>):

I'm amazed that there's ever any argument about this- in fact I suspect
it comes from people on either side who aren't terribly good at what
they do.

Just been pointed to a great Horizon episode that I remember watching
years ago that was basically Richard Feynman talking. He was being
asked questions but most of the actual questions were cut out because
his answers stood on their own. I've always regretted not have a copy
on tape. There was a pointer to it on Google Video from the Pharyngula
site [1] today.

Feynman addresses some things pertinent to this discussion in the
video. Well worth a watch, or a re-watch as you've probably seen it. I
agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment he expresses that an
understanding of the science behind something can only enhance your appreciation of its beauty. I've posted that in here a few time over
the years. All after I would have seen this programme, but I've had
these views since I was about 10ish. BTW: 42 tomorrow!!

Time for beer...

Ian

[1]<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/not_all_physicists_are_do rks.php>

--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:13:55 +0100, Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:

Iagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment he expresses that an
understanding of the science behind something can only enhance your appreciation of its beauty.

Absolutely right. For me, the night sky never fails to impress. The more I learn the more I enjoy.

BTW: 42 tomorrow!!
Time for beer...

Happy Birthday Ian
I'll join you in that beer!

--
Gareth

Random Thoughts and Interests http://web.mac.com/gaslee/iWeb/Site/Blog/Blog.html
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 18/4/06 8:23, in article op.s77xgnixc1trco@powerbook.local, "Gareth Slee" <gar.slee@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:13:55 +0100, Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:

Iagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment he expresses that an
understanding of the science behind something can only enhance your
appreciation of its beauty.

Absolutely right. For me, the night sky never fails to impress. The more I learn the more I enjoy.

BTW: 42 tomorrow!!
Time for beer...

Happy Birthday Ian

Have a good one!

I'll join you in that beer!

I'm being Grown Up and drinking some wine, but good health...

Cheers,

Chris

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C06AF9030020466AF0407530@news.gradwell.net>,
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:

[...]

Just been pointed to a great Horizon episode that I remember watching
years ago that was basically Richard Feynman talking. He was being
asked questions but most of the actual questions were cut out because
his answers stood on their own. I've always regretted not have a copy
on tape. There was a pointer to it on Google Video from the Pharyngula
site [1] today.

Feynman addresses some things pertinent to this discussion in the
video. Well worth a watch, or a re-watch as you've probably seen it. I
agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment he expresses that an
understanding of the science behind something can only enhance your appreciation of its beauty.

Off to watch it now. That is a sentiment that I, as a thoroughly arts/humanities trained person, would completely agree.

On the other hand, I did get a bit tired constantly trying to explain
that art wasn't necessarily about beauty, although it can be, and can be deliberately about its absence.

Having just watched the opening, Feynman's friend is a bit of caricature
of an artist. I know a lot of contemporary artists who are extremely interested in 'how things work' - not only because that knowledge adds
to the complexity and beauty of things, but because it increases the
stock of available and powerful metaphor, both in the facts and the form
of knowing. Granted, this may well be parasitic on science, but the
straw man of the 'leave the beauty of nature alone' artist is just that.

Interesting that having disclaimed an interest in the humanities,
Feynman then launches into autobiography - nowadays a key form of storytelling, and thereby of making a sense of a life.

I've posted that in here a few time over
the years. All after I would have seen this programme, but I've had
these views since I was about 10ish. BTW: 42 tomorrow!!

Creeping towards 41..

Time for beer...

Definitely. Beer levels out all those fact/value distinctions I find.

[1]<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/not_all_physicists_are_do rks.php>

Ta.

Giles
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:

I
agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment he expresses that an
understanding of the science behind something can only enhance your appreciation of its beauty. I've posted that in here a few time over
the years. All after I would have seen this programme, but I've had
these views since I was about 10ish. BTW: 42 tomorrow!!

So have I. And I'm 66...

Personally I've always felt that things were much more beautiful when
you understood at least *something* about them. Applies to science,
technology, people...
--
Peter
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 4/18/06 12:57 PM, in article
1he0cpa.14voh5zv72ck3N%peter@cara.demon.co.uk, "Peter Ceresole" <peter@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Personally I've always felt that things were much more beautiful when
you understood at least *something* about them. Applies to science, technology, people...

Maybe that is why I have little enjoyment of art. Moreover, I do not want to understand it.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:07:13 +0100, Salmon Egg wrote
(in article <C06AA310.22891%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net>):

Maybe that is why I have little enjoyment of art. Moreover, I do not want to understand it.

Art is a term that covers a lot of things. Music, painting, sculpture, literature, etc., etc. There is bound to be something you enjoy.

Personally I've never had any issue that pissed me off, that couldn't
be cured by listening to Brian May on the guitar or Kate Bush singing.
Just watched the Feynman video again. That really is one of the best
things ever captured on tape, IMHO.

Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113