I’d like to know why rationality is constantly referred to as an art instead of a science.
The defining feature which distinguishes one from the other is that arts don’t have self-referential procedures to improve performance and eliminate error; there are supposedly no universal methods to guarantee the production of art.
Why isn’t this forum concerned with developing the science of rationality?
Why isn’t this forum concerned with developing the science of rationality?
Because that doesn’t happen on blogs?
As a (slightly) more serious response, the “Art” is supposed to be a technique or school of techniques with which you can accomplish something. “Toolbox” might be as good a metaphor. Other folks are already advancing logic, cognitive psychology, decision theory, and such things; what we want to do here is put it all together so people can get better.
But learning the techniques of art isn’t enough to produce something useful. It takes more than that.
With science—or more plausibly in this context, engineering—learning the techniques has a direct relationship to producing quality output. It doesn’t take inspiration to build a good bridge—it takes knowledge, skill, and hard work.
Applying theory to practical applications is generally called ‘engineering’. Why isn’t this forum more interested in engineering the aspect of human cognition we call rationality?
Why isn’t this forum more interested in engineering the aspect of human cognition we call rationality?
You are begging too many questions, Annoyance. This forum is interested in both science and practical skill (“engineering”) or rationality. It’s just not at all clear how to approach this problem. Since there were numerousposts concerned with e.g. testing of people/skills/wins, your continued provocations implying that we are not interested in reasonable things are just obnoxious lies.
It is a failing of this community that your comments restating claims like this are not voted down to minus infinity.
I don’t think this means anything. Surely someone begging the question is committing a single fallacy, and there’s usually only about one opportunity for it in a simple argument—do you mean he’s assuming several different things that he’s setting out to prove? You didn’t even cite an argument above.
“It’s just not at all clear how to approach this problem.”
Of course there are ways to approach it. Known ways; tried and true ways. Among them are ‘logical analysis’ and ‘the scientific method’, and there is remarkable little interest in applying either of those to the problem. Or perhaps there is great interest but little ability. All we know for sure is that results aren’t being produced, and there’s no functioning capacity to resolve that.
Of course there are ways to approach it. Known ways; tried and true ways.
Sounds like you are the man for the job!
Or perhaps there is great interest but little ability.
There is great interest. And in many aspects of rationality, there is already lots of science to feed on, to adopt for a new purpose. Meet decision theory, experimental study of biases, cognitive science, good philosophy. In the gaps, it’s just too hard to even ask the proper questions, let alone systematically study answers on them.
But yes, we are few, not very dedicated or competent. Nobody expects great miracles to come directly from the current sorry state of affairs. The idea is to growsomething greater.
Any person with a spark can light the cooking fire.
“There is great interest.”
When a task has few requirements that are widely available, the fact that it is not being done is strong evidence that intention and interest to do it are rare.
You say there is great interest. The first stages of the process are simple and easy, and require abilities that are distributed widely. The first stages are not being completed; they don’t even seem to be attempted. Ergo, I conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
Applying theory to practical applications is generally called ‘engineering’.
Well, it’s also commonly called ‘art’. And I do believe folks are interested in this sort of thing—aside from posts about this site, it seems like that’s what most of the content here is about.
It doesn’t take inspiration to build a good bridge—it takes knowledge, skill, and hard work.
A lot of artists will tell you the same thing about, say, taking a good photograph or painting a good portrait.
Those things take talent of a kind that can’t be taught.
Arts are those things that require skills that can’t be taught—either because we don’t know how or because it’s not possible. Maintaining motorized vehicles is generally a science, but there are people whose expertise extends to listening to an engine run and tell what’s wrong with it—without being able to explain what information they’re paying attention to, how they’re processing it, or how others could do the same. That’s an art instead of a science.
“it seems like that’s what most of the content here is about.”
Virtually no content here is about that. At most, some of the material is about being about that.
It seems like you’re taking a common folk view of how art works. Good art comes from good theory, hard work, and practice—just study how any of the Renaissance greats came to be.
But perhaps we’ve reached the point in our discussion where data becomes relevant, and I haven’t any citations handy.
I usually make a distinction between ‘craft’ and ‘art’. Craftsmanship is an important part of artistic endeavor, yes, but it’s not enough—it’s necessary but not sufficient. It’s a limiting factor. A skilled artist is necessarily also a skilled craftsman, but not vice versa.
If I assume you’re using art to refer to skill in producing, your arguments become much clearer to me. But I do think there’s an important distinction your terminology isn’t reflecting.
I would have to agree—this is a reasonable way of talking within aesthetics (or the study of art generally) - the distinction is made between “art” and “craft”, where (to put it simply) “art” is making something good and unique for the first time, and “craft” is skillfully making it again. But “art” is used more broadly too, and I think the intuition here is more in line with its use in “martial arts”. I think whatever term we use is going to be somewhat ad-hoc, and folks here seem to have latched onto ‘art’. It doesn’t seem damaging to me, and seems to be useful as the appropriate sort of propaganda.
That still isn’t the terminological usage I’m referring to. ‘Craft’ is the ability to design and construct a form with the desired properties, usually (but not always) dealing with concrete, physical forms. ‘Art’ is the ability to utilize craft in the service of aesthetics.
Craft is taking the raw materials of a canvas and paint and combining them in such a way that they match your intention. Art is having aesthetically powerful intentions and expressing them.
The second point: ‘propaganda’ is precisely what we should be avoiding.
I’d like to know why rationality is constantly referred to as an art instead of a science.
The defining feature which distinguishes one from the other is that arts don’t have self-referential procedures to improve performance and eliminate error; there are supposedly no universal methods to guarantee the production of art.
Art contains a whole spectrum of meaning. The ‘art of rationality’ is closer ‘the art of computer programming’ to ‘the art of expressionist painting’.
I’d like to know why rationality is constantly referred to as an art instead of a science.
The defining feature which distinguishes one from the other is that arts don’t have self-referential procedures to improve performance and eliminate error; there are supposedly no universal methods to guarantee the production of art.
Why isn’t this forum concerned with developing the science of rationality?
Because that doesn’t happen on blogs?
As a (slightly) more serious response, the “Art” is supposed to be a technique or school of techniques with which you can accomplish something. “Toolbox” might be as good a metaphor. Other folks are already advancing logic, cognitive psychology, decision theory, and such things; what we want to do here is put it all together so people can get better.
But learning the techniques of art isn’t enough to produce something useful. It takes more than that.
With science—or more plausibly in this context, engineering—learning the techniques has a direct relationship to producing quality output. It doesn’t take inspiration to build a good bridge—it takes knowledge, skill, and hard work.
Applying theory to practical applications is generally called ‘engineering’. Why isn’t this forum more interested in engineering the aspect of human cognition we call rationality?
Earlier:
Here:
You are begging too many questions, Annoyance. This forum is interested in both science and practical skill (“engineering”) or rationality. It’s just not at all clear how to approach this problem. Since there were numerous posts concerned with e.g. testing of people/skills/wins, your continued provocations implying that we are not interested in reasonable things are just obnoxious lies.
It is a failing of this community that your comments restating claims like this are not voted down to minus infinity.
I don’t think this means anything. Surely someone begging the question is committing a single fallacy, and there’s usually only about one opportunity for it in a simple argument—do you mean he’s assuming several different things that he’s setting out to prove? You didn’t even cite an argument above.
“It’s just not at all clear how to approach this problem.”
Of course there are ways to approach it. Known ways; tried and true ways. Among them are ‘logical analysis’ and ‘the scientific method’, and there is remarkable little interest in applying either of those to the problem. Or perhaps there is great interest but little ability. All we know for sure is that results aren’t being produced, and there’s no functioning capacity to resolve that.
Sounds like you are the man for the job!
There is great interest. And in many aspects of rationality, there is already lots of science to feed on, to adopt for a new purpose. Meet decision theory, experimental study of biases, cognitive science, good philosophy. In the gaps, it’s just too hard to even ask the proper questions, let alone systematically study answers on them.
But yes, we are few, not very dedicated or competent. Nobody expects great miracles to come directly from the current sorry state of affairs. The idea is to grow something greater.
“Sounds like you are the man for the job!”
Any person with a spark can light the cooking fire.
“There is great interest.”
When a task has few requirements that are widely available, the fact that it is not being done is strong evidence that intention and interest to do it are rare.
You say there is great interest. The first stages of the process are simple and easy, and require abilities that are distributed widely. The first stages are not being completed; they don’t even seem to be attempted. Ergo, I conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
Well, it’s also commonly called ‘art’. And I do believe folks are interested in this sort of thing—aside from posts about this site, it seems like that’s what most of the content here is about.
A lot of artists will tell you the same thing about, say, taking a good photograph or painting a good portrait.
Those things take talent of a kind that can’t be taught.
Arts are those things that require skills that can’t be taught—either because we don’t know how or because it’s not possible. Maintaining motorized vehicles is generally a science, but there are people whose expertise extends to listening to an engine run and tell what’s wrong with it—without being able to explain what information they’re paying attention to, how they’re processing it, or how others could do the same. That’s an art instead of a science.
“it seems like that’s what most of the content here is about.”
Virtually no content here is about that. At most, some of the material is about being about that.
It seems like you’re taking a common folk view of how art works. Good art comes from good theory, hard work, and practice—just study how any of the Renaissance greats came to be.
But perhaps we’ve reached the point in our discussion where data becomes relevant, and I haven’t any citations handy.
I usually make a distinction between ‘craft’ and ‘art’. Craftsmanship is an important part of artistic endeavor, yes, but it’s not enough—it’s necessary but not sufficient. It’s a limiting factor. A skilled artist is necessarily also a skilled craftsman, but not vice versa.
If I assume you’re using art to refer to skill in producing, your arguments become much clearer to me. But I do think there’s an important distinction your terminology isn’t reflecting.
I would have to agree—this is a reasonable way of talking within aesthetics (or the study of art generally) - the distinction is made between “art” and “craft”, where (to put it simply) “art” is making something good and unique for the first time, and “craft” is skillfully making it again. But “art” is used more broadly too, and I think the intuition here is more in line with its use in “martial arts”. I think whatever term we use is going to be somewhat ad-hoc, and folks here seem to have latched onto ‘art’. It doesn’t seem damaging to me, and seems to be useful as the appropriate sort of propaganda.
Two thoughts:
That still isn’t the terminological usage I’m referring to. ‘Craft’ is the ability to design and construct a form with the desired properties, usually (but not always) dealing with concrete, physical forms. ‘Art’ is the ability to utilize craft in the service of aesthetics.
Craft is taking the raw materials of a canvas and paint and combining them in such a way that they match your intention. Art is having aesthetically powerful intentions and expressing them.
The second point: ‘propaganda’ is precisely what we should be avoiding.
Art contains a whole spectrum of meaning. The ‘art of rationality’ is closer ‘the art of computer programming’ to ‘the art of expressionist painting’.