"[...] I think you misunderstand the nature and limits of scientific explanation and theoretical models. In fact, you seem to conflate the difference between scientific explanation and rational argument. "
My point of the astrology/astronomy comment was simply to show that claiming art has no objective criteria for discerning value is like someone saying science has no objective criteria. I used the trite dichotomy to show that common thinking about art as "all just a matter of my opinion or taste against yours" is the equivalent of pre-enlightment rationality.
I'm not sure why you've taken such pains to discuss the nature of scientific reasoning. I'm all too well aware of how positivism reduces and dismisses all other forms of thought to the realm of relativism. I haven't, in any of my comments, claimed scientific validity or relied on scientific method to prove the merits of art works or to distinguish among them. I have however referred to the truth value of works which is the criterion for assigning rank that I'm advocating.
"[...] Some how you have come to the conclusion that because I believe there can be no scientific explanation of art that we can't have rational arguments about what is good and bad art. Sure we can have rational arguments but such arguments are never going to show what is good or bad art in the way that astrophysics can show me the evolution of a star"
There are numerous ways that one can demonstrate good or bad art without ever relying on scientific method. Referencing the evolution of forms or techniques and then showing how a particular work evolves or lags that history is one such means. Another is to identify the contradictions in a work (whether in the area of content or in form or between the two) and detail how the work grapples with those contradictions. Great works always embody the most complex contradictions as their raw material and the resolution - even if it is the inability of the work to reconcile the contradictions - is another criterion for measuring value. These and many other critical techniques are objective and can be universally recognized.
"[...] An argument over art is continuous and inconclusive by nature. That is why tolerance of differences in taste in these areas is a necessary condition for rational argument. In short there can be argument but no certainty."
If you replace the word "art" with "science" in your statement you'll see my frustration with this line of thinking. Once again, my point is that 1) art works have objective features which can be identified as better or worse than other works, 2) recognition and acknowledgment of this concept is unpalatable to the ruling class, and thus 3) it is in the interests of that class to perpetuate the dismissal of any effort to treat art objectively. If science posed the threat to the powerful that art does, it too would be relegated to disagreements about matters of taste and subjective preference.
... and Miles wrote:
"[...] In fields like art or philosophy or theology, there are no consensually agreed upon standards for determining what is "true" in that field. Many competing claims, yes, but no agreed upon way for adjudicating the claims. In science, we can say, "okay, let's conduct a series of studies to test that claim". There is no analogous procedure in nonscientific fields."
There are plenty of such claims. Just as scientific claims are subject to empirical, experimental proof; non-scientific fields are subject to proving their truth content as well.
"This position illustrates the problem: you say "the greatest works of art undermine authority", and there are many great artists, art critics, and art historians who disagree with your claim. How do you adjudicate that disagreement? If you say "without question", we should just ignore the other points of view? --It boils down to a political question: who has the power to determine what the characteristics of "good art" are in a given society at a given time?"
Is it not the same with scientific reasoning? How can you ignore the historico-political dimension to what gets canonized as "good" or "bad" science?
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061002/9107357e/attachment.htm>