Theories are certainly a part of science, and this is probably where the art
of science comes into play. However, science as “laws of nature” is not
open to interpretation. The laws that governed the Greeks haven’t changed.
Pythagorus’ theorem is still relevant.
Well, that works within a model. Actually, most of the geometry we
deal with works within a model, a room Euclid built with Point, Line
and Plane as walls, and geometry is about the ways a ball thrown
inside that room can bounce.
Clearly one has to stay within those walls for it to work.
the basic science itself was not open to interpretation.
There was a thing called Mars, and it moved about in the sky, and the task
was to figure out how, or at least by what rules. The “why” will always be
a mystery (unless we find out when we die) but the “hows” we can more or
less answer, with increasing accuracy as our science evolves.
Funny one could put `art’ on top of that and still have it apply. In
many paintings ``there is a thing called Red, which hit by light
absorbs part of it and reflects something else back. The “why” of the
artist will always be a mistery. The “hows” we can more or less
answer, with increasing accuracy as our understanding of his
There are no “answers” for Art.
You’re assuming you’ve asked all the questions.
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:25:45PM +0900, Sean Russell wrote: