Universality
I think it is reasonably clear that a discipline's claim to universality, by which I mean its consistent applicability within any given human context, hinges on three things.
Firstly, it depends on whether the discipline has got readily accessible standards which can be debated openly. Secondly, it depends on whether that discipline produces successfully a) effective and b) predictive models for action within our known frames of reference. Thirdly, its principles must be efficient; that is, given fulfilment of a basic principle or law, all such cases which that law applied to would be covered.
This is how we can evaluate whether art (for example) would fail as a universal discipline. Art would fail if any of the following were true.
1. Art doesn't have readily accessible standards, although the proffered standards can be debated openly.
2a. If you told someone to make art, each case produced has to be evaluated separately. As a discipline, it does not allow for effective models - cognitive structures which when applied lead reproducibly to the production of art.
2b. If a person attempted art, it would be impossible to reliably predict that it would be considered art.
3. If a person followed basic principles of art, his product might still not be art (alternatively, if a person could make art while violating a basic principle of art).
The same tests (with appropriate adjustments) might be applied to any discipline. As an exercise, try 'life sciences'. In the weeks ahead, I will probably post more on this subject.
Firstly, it depends on whether the discipline has got readily accessible standards which can be debated openly. Secondly, it depends on whether that discipline produces successfully a) effective and b) predictive models for action within our known frames of reference. Thirdly, its principles must be efficient; that is, given fulfilment of a basic principle or law, all such cases which that law applied to would be covered.
This is how we can evaluate whether art (for example) would fail as a universal discipline. Art would fail if any of the following were true.
1. Art doesn't have readily accessible standards, although the proffered standards can be debated openly.
2a. If you told someone to make art, each case produced has to be evaluated separately. As a discipline, it does not allow for effective models - cognitive structures which when applied lead reproducibly to the production of art.
2b. If a person attempted art, it would be impossible to reliably predict that it would be considered art.
3. If a person followed basic principles of art, his product might still not be art (alternatively, if a person could make art while violating a basic principle of art).
The same tests (with appropriate adjustments) might be applied to any discipline. As an exercise, try 'life sciences'. In the weeks ahead, I will probably post more on this subject.
etched with acid at 3:09:00 am
4 Comments:
Aiyorh.
That's why art cannot be a discipline.
That's why I'm taking HL Bio Chem Math
not HL art 1 art 2 art 3.
Haha. I cannot find the right word for it. Art is universal and we should be learing it at universities but not as a discpline. As a thing thing. Um....Perhaps a paradigm?
p.s. you word verifications are most amusing: yeuwaswu
Whoa. Chim, chim. My criteria for universality are:
a) is it true
b) is it relevant
c) does it make me happy
Silly, but there you are.
brownpanda, I cannot be as hardcore as you seem to be...
I would have to say:
a) is it always true
b) is it always relevant
c) does it always make me happy
Hmm, but aren't these criteria very science-oriented with respect to methodology and predictability? Or perhaps just an indicative of what you talked about, the infiltration of science across all levels of other disciplines.
Besides, what if any set of disciplines, when arising, calls for an entirely new frame of reference in which it itself can be judged? Some science developments did that in the past i believe..
Isn't that the same with art then? Every piece of art calls for a certain frame of reference (usually the mind of the artist) and that for it to be adjudged otherwise would not be relevant. In which case, things considered/not considered art merely are an expression of how widespread that frame of reference may apply to other people, a form of empathic judgement, I suppose.
Post a Comment
<< Home