The art of science
June 28, 2005 9:38 AM Subscribe
Who says science can't be beautiful?
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted previously
That narrows it down by one; good work. Personally, I suspect OJ.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:46 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:46 AM on June 28, 2005
"Who says science can't be beautiful?"
Okay, I'll bite. Who says this?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:47 AM on June 28, 2005
Okay, I'll bite. Who says this?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:47 AM on June 28, 2005
My father was a scientist and a beautiful man. I say science can be beautiful.
I'd imagine creationists might hold that science can't be beautiful and maybe those pesky Scientologists.
But these are some really beautiful images, thanks for the post.
posted by fenriq at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2005
I'd imagine creationists might hold that science can't be beautiful and maybe those pesky Scientologists.
But these are some really beautiful images, thanks for the post.
posted by fenriq at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2005
Well there's this person , and this person for starters.
posted by Fozzie at 9:54 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Fozzie at 9:54 AM on June 28, 2005
y6y6y6 -- I've heard scientists mock the layperson's wish for "pretty pictures" that result from their work, rather than the hard data. The more cynical among them are savvy enough to hoard their "pretty pictures" and dole them out for PR. Many scientists are simply aesthetically tone-deaf -- more so than other professions, I would wager.
posted by Faze at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Faze at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2005
Well, for starters, madamjujujive would never say such a thing.
Sorry for the duplicate post. I did do a search and it didn't come up. Although the other link I had been going to post with this did, so I left it out.
posted by Fozzie at 9:57 AM on June 28, 2005
Sorry for the duplicate post. I did do a search and it didn't come up. Although the other link I had been going to post with this did, so I left it out.
posted by Fozzie at 9:57 AM on June 28, 2005
Idiots.
Idiots say science can't be beautiful. I'm sorry, I know it was a rethorical question, but this is a bugbear of mine. It is the worst possible argument against science and I hear it all the damn time, explicitly forwarded by creationists and other ne'er do wells, and implicit in the popular media. "Well maaaaaybe science is techincally right, but my made up ideas are more beautiful." Bosh! Bosh I say!
Consider, which is the more beautiful answer to "How do trees grow?"
"Because God wants the world to be pretty and have trees in it"
or
"By the process of photosynthisis, which the tree uses to turn sunshine and air in to the chemical materials it uses to grow."
Bah! A pox on all mush-mouthed dunderheads!
posted by Capn at 10:03 AM on June 28, 2005
Idiots say science can't be beautiful. I'm sorry, I know it was a rethorical question, but this is a bugbear of mine. It is the worst possible argument against science and I hear it all the damn time, explicitly forwarded by creationists and other ne'er do wells, and implicit in the popular media. "Well maaaaaybe science is techincally right, but my made up ideas are more beautiful." Bosh! Bosh I say!
Consider, which is the more beautiful answer to "How do trees grow?"
"Because God wants the world to be pretty and have trees in it"
or
"By the process of photosynthisis, which the tree uses to turn sunshine and air in to the chemical materials it uses to grow."
Bah! A pox on all mush-mouthed dunderheads!
posted by Capn at 10:03 AM on June 28, 2005
Every gasoline-tainted water puddle is awash with rainbows.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:04 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:04 AM on June 28, 2005
"Well, yeah, ok, but science can't add beauty to the world, only explain things"
Look up at the night sky. What's going on? inconceivably long ago, unbelievably far away, in the heart of a star, two atoms fused together and emitted a photon.
This photon bounced around the star, being absorbed and reemitted for many many years. Eventually it found it's way to the surface of the star and took off through space.
For thousands of years this photon streamed through space, traveling as fast as the universe allows.
Finally, at journey's end, it lands in the middle of your retina and sets off a chain reaction in your brain. Star stuff, from an event that happened before we learned how to make fire, becomes thoughts.
posted by Capn at 10:10 AM on June 28, 2005
Look up at the night sky. What's going on? inconceivably long ago, unbelievably far away, in the heart of a star, two atoms fused together and emitted a photon.
This photon bounced around the star, being absorbed and reemitted for many many years. Eventually it found it's way to the surface of the star and took off through space.
For thousands of years this photon streamed through space, traveling as fast as the universe allows.
Finally, at journey's end, it lands in the middle of your retina and sets off a chain reaction in your brain. Star stuff, from an event that happened before we learned how to make fire, becomes thoughts.
posted by Capn at 10:10 AM on June 28, 2005
A Google search indicates that not a single person says "Science can't be beautiful". That, or maybe they don't use the internet. Or they're very scrupulous about setting up their robots.txt files.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on June 28, 2005
« Older People of Earth | The sun finally set for good on the British empire Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2005