Reply to comment

I’m still thinking about the “chair” and the “abstract” that Prof Grobstein drew on Thursday. Many people in class who liked the “abstract” more than the “chair” believed the “abstract” to be more imaginary, and one was able to make it out to be whatever they want because there were more possibilities since the drawing was not concrete. Many people in class who liked the “chair” saw the drawing as something comforting, non threatening, and a part of common knowledge. However I think the most interesting imagination would come out of the drawing of the “chair”. In the “abstract” drawing, and  depending on the viewer, the viewer is  forced to interpret but in the “chair” drawing, the viewer is given something concrete but he or she, if he or she chooses, can make something else out of it… Too bad, it made more sense in my head during class on Thursday.

However, I don’t see the problem with interpretation. I think limiting interpretation is equivalent to limiting people’s minds and imaginations. Granted, I don’t think everyone should be forced to find “the meaning” or “the truth” in every piece of literary or artistic work, and I don’t think one interpretation is more right than another. However, if one person looks at a Jackson Pollock and their immediate reaction is a view of a forest or a bird and another sees “something pretty” or just a blob, what’s wrong with that? I think the problem arises when people start asking, “What do you see in that?” as opposed to “What do you see?”.

As for science without method…I’m still a little lost. Even loopy science has a similar method to traditional science, so I don’t see how you can study science without some simple procedures.