Why are things beautiful?

[Olowkow]

Tastes in beauty change.

Definitely life threatening to me! But new though.

 

[blue sock monkey]

Tastes in beauty change.

As Mark Twain pointed out, it's difference of opinion that makes horse races. I like that piece--have a miniature of it, in fact.

 

[I Ratant]

As Mark Twain pointed out, it's difference of opinion that makes horse races. I like that piece--have a miniature of it, in fact.

.
I have a life-sized 98.6 degree version of it.
Too much fun to hold on to!

 

[Piggy]

True story: I went with a friend to an upstairs Manhattan gallery to look for sculptures. On our way down the hall, we passed an open door, which was cluttered with paint cans, miscellaneous tools and an open workman's lunchbox, all scattered across a stained dropcloth.

You've guessed it: there was a price tag on this piece of artwork.

To each his own.

A few years back when they were remodeling parts of Hartsfield airport up in Atlanta, there was a minor scandal when a very expensive piece of art was discarded by the sanitation crew who, quite understandably, mistook it for scrappage.

I get a chuckle every time I ride the escalator past this "installation".

 

[!Kaggen]

Piggy's OP actually highlights a very fundamental thing about the scientific method (the iterative process of : observation,induction,deduction, test).
It only works with observations made in the testing phase.
In other words "objective" observations.
Piggy's view from his porch and thought about what he experiences as beautiful is not a scientific experimental set-up with controls, adequate samples, enough repetitions and placebo's.
I have yet to see a scientific article that begins with
" I was strolling down the road and saw/heard/smelled this..... I wonder what it means?" and only uses this as a personal observation.
Most might refer to a general observation to start with not personal ones, but all refer to previous statistically significant experimental results from which the author induces certain premises. Then using deduction, the author reasons a certain conclusion from these premises, then designs a experiment to test this conclusion.
Therefore the scientific method is designed to answer a specific conclusion reasoned from statistically significant experimental results.
The whole process has one goal in mind, to objectify the subjective author.

Questions like.
What is beauty?
What is knowledge?
What is religion?
are all very personal and subjective and the scientific method is not designed to answer them.
They are question which can only be answered adequately with thinking.
Yes, the scientific method can throw light on aspects of these questions as pointed out on this thread.

These scientific questions would be something like this.

Observations have shown that a specific culture places great emphasis on facial markings as beautiful. What % of people outside this specific culture regard facial markings as beautiful?
Is there a reproductive advantage to seeing X as beautiful?

Although obvious difficulties with testing these hypotheses seem likely because of the extremely diverse nature of human culture, current complex interactions and measuring human reproductive advantage in the field.

On another point behavioral ecologists do not use the term evolutionary advantage as it is not the correct term for these types of studies. They do not measure evolution they measure reproductive advantage. Evolution is an hypothesis derived from data. Nobody who actually studies this hypothesis asks where can I measure evolution!

As far as the limits of the scientific method is concerned which I highlighted above. Because scientists tend to ignore personal, subjective thoughts except of course when they are off work relaxing on their porch, I find the thought process of many scientists very underdeveloped. The excuse that thinking about thinking is a waste of time reserved for "bad" philosophers is too bad as it would only improve their scientific work.
Just a thought

 

[quarky]

Trying to be scientific about the perception of beauty is ugly.

There is a time for beauty. Its a straight-up gift.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Questions like.
What is beauty?
What is knowledge?
What is religion?
are all very personal and subjective and the scientific method is not designed to answer them.

At some point in the future barring catastrophic destruction of the human race we will have scientific answers for those questions. Philosophy while having some use in dealing with things science cannot yet deal with is not too useful in determining the true nature of things. It's just a "work around" till we can use science.

 

[!Kaggen]

There's no need for philosophy in any of this.

To define "beauty" you need rhetoric and linguistics, not philosophy.

And you've drawn a false dichotomy between the questions "Why did our sense of beauty evolve?" and "Why do we each find different things to be beautiful?"

Both can be approached scientifically, without philosophy -- as was nicely demonstrated by the "Your Brain on Art" PDF that another poster linked to above.

For some reason, when scientific questions are applied to humans, you want to leap into philosophy. But it's an unjustified and unnecessary leap.

As an example, suppose we observe that about 60% of dogs love green beans. They salivate when they smell them, gobble them up when given a chance, and prefer them over most other foods when given a choice.

About 30% of dogs hate green beans. They turn away from them and won't eat them even when hungry.

About 10% of dogs don't seem to much care. They'll eat green beans, but don't especially prefer them.

We can use the scientific method to answer the question "Why do some dogs like green beans while others dislike them?" No one would suggest that this is somehow a philosophical issue. Nor do we need philosophy in order to define "dog", "like", "dislike", or "green bean".

Nothing changes when we shift our focus to humans, or when we change our topic to why different people find different things beautiful or ugly.

At some point in the future barring catastrophic destruction of the human race we will have scientific answers for those questions. Philosophy while having some use in dealing with things science cannot yet deal with is not too useful in determining the true nature of things. It's just a "work around" till we can use science.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I referred to in this post.
"Platonism by denial" or "Scientism"
Basically just another religious movement of people who are ignorant of how the scientific method works. What bugs me is that the priests in the churches like it this way as it is easier without public dissent. Keep them ignorant of the process and give them "the facts". You will find this technique is common throughout history in every organized religious movement.

 

[blue sock monkey]

Trying to be scientific about the perception of beauty is ugly.

There is a time for beauty. Its a straight-up gift.

I think that it would enhance my appreciation for beautiful things, if I understood better what is going on in my brain when I read a poem, watch ballet, contemplate the Grand Canyon--understanding would add a layer of pleasure to the experiences. As Dawkins pointed out in Unweaving the Rainbow, astronomers, botanists, etc with specialized knowledge do not find the universe less beautiful, but more.

 

[quarky]

I think that it would enhance my appreciation for beautiful things, if I understood better what is going on in my brain when I read a poem, watch ballet, contemplate the Grand Canyon--understanding would add a layer of pleasure to the experiences. As Dawkins pointed out in Unweaving the Rainbow, astronomers, botanists, etc with specialized knowledge do not find the universe less beautiful, but more.

yeah, I guess...

But did you ever have to watch a sunset or a rainbow with someone that wants to explain the science of it?

 

[blue sock monkey]

yeah, I guess...

But did you ever have to watch a sunset or a rainbow with someone that wants to explain the science of it?

Well, I once cruised around the British Virgin Islands with a real live rocket scientist aboard. As the sun fell each evening, he would tell us about the stars, and we would sip our gin & tonics and lean back gazing in unison, while the sounds of a band ashore wafted out over the water. And yes, it was magical.

But of course, you've got to have an eloquent rocket scientist for the magic to happen.

 

[Piggy]

This is exactly the kind of thinking I referred to in this post.
"Platonism by denial" or "Scientism"
Basically just another religious movement of people who are ignorant of how the scientific method works. What bugs me is that the priests in the churches like it this way as it is easier without public dissent. Keep them ignorant of the process and give them "the facts". You will find this technique is common throughout history in every organized religious movement.

Would you care to actually offer some valid reason why these are not scientific questions:

What is beauty?

Why do humans have a capacity to perceive beauty?

Why is there variation from individual to individual in what people find beautiful?

What factors determine that variation?

Would you care to actually offer a reasoned critique of my post which you cite above?

Of course these are scientific questions.

As I've said, I reckon you can philosophize about them, too, but they can be approached scientifically.

You've offered no valid reason why these issues should somehow lie outside the purview of scientific investigation.

It is not enough to merely assert an erroneous conflation between science and religion.

 

[Piggy]

Questions like.
What is beauty?
What is knowledge?
What is religion?
are all very personal and subjective and the scientific method is not designed to answer them.

Yes, in fact, science very well designed to answer them. It's just that, being questions involving the human brain, they're darn difficult to get at.

Mere reflection, on the other hand, doesn't stand much chance of ever answering them.

 

[Piggy]

Because scientists tend to ignore personal, subjective thoughts except of course when they are off work relaxing on their porch, I find the thought process of many scientists very underdeveloped.

This is simply incorrect. "Personal, subjective thoughts" are not much use for many scientific investigations -- such as development of superconductors -- but they are critical to others, such as the exploration of how the brain produces emotion and perception. We have to know what the subject is experiencing (his/her "personal, subjective thoughts") in order to understand the significance of what the brain is doing.

 

[Piggy]

yeah, I guess...

But did you ever have to watch a sunset or a rainbow with someone that wants to explain the science of it?

That's why I posted this question here, rather than inviting folks over to my back porch to discuss it.

 

[!Kaggen]

This is exactly the kind of thinking I referred to in this post.
"Platonism by denial" or "Scientism"
Basically just another religious movement of people who are ignorant of how the scientific method works. What bugs me is that the priests in the churches like it this way as it is easier without public dissent. Keep them ignorant of the process and give them "the facts". You will find this technique is common throughout history in every organized religious movement.

Would you care to actually offer some valid reason why these are not scientific questions:

There is no such thing as a scientific question.
Only a hypothesis which the scientific method can find statistically significant data to refute or not.
What I think you imply by your "scientific question" is that the subject of "any" observation can be examined by the scientific method, which is an assumption based on a belief system, rather than the scientific method. The scientific method can only examine observations of universal statistically significant data.

What is beauty?

Where is the data to support your observation that "beauty" is a universal statistically significant concept inherent in human beings? If you have none you can not deduce anything from the concept beauty in order to propose a hypothesis about "what beauty is?" in order to design an experiment to test the hypothesis.

Why do humans have a capacity to perceive beauty?

see previous response about the observation of the concept beauty before we can test a hypothesis based on the above observation

Why is there variation from individual to individual in what people find beautiful?

This is a variation of the "what is beauty" observation and once again we first need statistically significant evidence that the concept beauty is a universal statistically significant concept inherent in humans. Once you have data to support this hypothesis, you can then deduce a hypothesis "Some people interpret certain things as beautiful and other people do not" and so on till one could deduce with further data the hypothesis "This variation in what people find beautiful is because of .....".

What factors determine that variation?

Same question really as the previous one.

Would you care to actually offer a reasoned critique of my post which you cite above?

Philosophy and specifically epistemology is the process of thinking about thinking.
When you think about an observation produced by thinking (beauty) its called epistemology.
When you want to think (propose a hypothesis) about observations produced using the scientific method (i.e. from experiments which produce universally applicable statistically significant data), its called, the scientific method.
When you call questions scientific, you cannot see the difference and dogs and green beans become what you want them to become.

Of course these are scientific questions.

As I've said, I reckon you can philosophize about them, too, but they can be approached scientifically.

You've offered no valid reason why these issues should somehow lie outside the purview of scientific investigation.

It is not enough to merely assert an erroneous conflation between science and religion.

I am not asserting anything.
I am proposing a hypothesis which can be tested using the scientific method.
The hypothesis is "Most scientists use thinking without examining it and this is equivalent to how organized religion uses god without examining it"

 

[Dogdoctor]

This is exactly the kind of thinking I referred to in this post.
"Platonism by denial" or "Scientism"
Basically just another religious movement of people who are ignorant of how the scientific method works. What bugs me is that the priests in the churches like it this way as it is easier without public dissent. Keep them ignorant of the process and give them "the facts". You will find this technique is common throughout history in every organized religious movement.

It used to be philosophers would sit around and discuss something like how many teeth a horse should have. They thought you should be able to logically come up with the right number. In truth you could but you have to look at the genome and understand it better than we do now. Philosophy tells you nothing about the world.

 

[I Ratant]

Mr. Socrates never asked the Missus to open her mouth, when he pronounced that men have more teeth than women.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Take a seedy, litter strewn ghetto neighborhood on a dark and threatening night. Most, if not all, would pass through quickly, without a thought towards beauty. And yet such a scene became a thing of incredible beauty ( at least to some minds) as the main setting in Michael Jackson's music video Billy Jean. Whoever did that screenplay knew a thing or two about HIDDEN beauty

 

[I Ratant]

The impression I got from that video way back when was the absurdity of accepting that twinkie as a gangsta'.