…and this is a 
This is an excerpt from a letter Richard Feynman wrote in March 1958, back when I was just about exactly one year old and still wearing diapers. He'd been doing some consulting work for the entertainment industry, and wasn't very happy with their attitude.
The idea that movie people know how to present this stuff, because they are entertainment-wise and the scientists aren't is wrong. They have no experience in explaining ideas, witness all movies, and I do. I am a successful lecturer in physics for popular audiences. The real entertainment gimmick is the excitement, drama and mystery of the subject matter. People love to learn something, they are "entertained" enormously by being allowed to understand a little bit of something they never understood before. One must have faith in the subject and in people's interest in it. Otherwise just use a Western to sell telephones! The faith in the value of the subject matter must be sincere and show through clearly. All gimmicks, etc. should be subservient to this. They should help in explaining and describing the subject, and not in entertaining. Entertainment will be an automatic byproduct.
I don't entirely agree with him — most entertainment isn't at all didactic — but he's right that when you are trying to get an informative message across, the gimmicks have to be the garnish, not the main course, and the work you do in developing the medium has to focus on making the message itself interesting.
For instance, the Book of Kells is an artistic wonder, an illuminated manuscript that anyone could spend hours and days staring at, enjoying the script and the little illustrations all over the pages. But those are geegaws that don't make the content clearer or more palatable — they allow one to appreciate it while ignoring the message (and a good thing, too — it's just the dull old gospels turned into art). In communicating science, the goal is not to load it up with bells and whistles, but to make the story you're telling clear and accessible. You don't want the listener or reader to overlook the message.
Although I have seen a few evil PowerPoint presentations that show the creator doesn't understand that concept…
Education
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 12, 2009 8:39 PM
JREF just released a video of Jennifer Oulette talking about science in TV and movies.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 12, 2009 8:40 PM
Wait. You mean... I should be writing prose?
It would be considerably easier, now that you mention it...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 12, 2009 8:52 PM
So Marshall McCluan was wrong, the medium is not the message.
Posted by: John Morales | September 12, 2009 8:55 PM
[meta]
Cuttlefish!
Noooooo!
After so many years of me dissing poetry in favour of prose, don't you dare close that door that you've opened (just a litle) for me!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 9:01 PM
Feynman was right. And, he also understood that not all of science was interesting. I remember, in one of his physics lectures, he said "this part is not very interesting but we have to work through it to get to the really fun stuff."
His views about making media "interesting" aligned with his views on "marketing" (and, probably therefore "framing") - namely that marketing is an inherently immoral profession, because its sole purpose is to make things that you are selling more attractive than you know them to be.
Feynman said a lot more interesting, wise, and funny stuff than jesus was ever alleged to. That's just a fact.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 12, 2009 9:10 PM
Did anyone else just get a mental picture of Shane, modified so Jack Palance is saying 'pick it up' to a guy who's standing near a telephone?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 9:12 PM
Did anyone else just get a mental picture of Shane, modified so Jack Palance is saying 'pick it up' to a guy who's standing near a telephone?
Josey Wales: "Can you hear me - now?"
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | September 12, 2009 9:16 PM
Oh, P.Z., don't be such a scientist!!
Posted by: Tyro | September 12, 2009 9:18 PM
A righteous smackdown of Randy Olsen & Mooneybaum.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 12, 2009 9:19 PM
Hee.
Posted by: RichardX | September 12, 2009 9:29 PM
People love to learn something
Yeah, right.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
September 12, 2009 9:37 PM
New word for me today: trophallaxis
Neat. Normally I can recognise the Latin or Greek roots well enough to figure out the construction of the word. This time I will have to check it out in a dictionary for more fun.
Posted by: Fil | September 12, 2009 9:39 PM
"Although I have seen a few evil PowerPoint presentations that show the creator doesn't understand that concept…"
So, you are saying that even Mr Deity sucks at PowerPoint?
Posted by: jtradke | September 12, 2009 9:44 PM
Freaky... I just read this letter last night (in the book Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track, a collection of his letters that his daughter put together). And the relevance to today's framing and accomodationist debates is striking.
Also interesting is his refusal to re-shoot an interview with a television program because the producers were worried that his views, which were critical of religion, might "antagonize people".
From that letter (pg. 101, from May 14, 1959):
Posted by: Chris Adams | September 12, 2009 9:44 PM
Also sad: re-reading Feynman's experiences in 1964 with the California public school system, attempting to have real science textbooks, and recognizing it as better than it was a couple decades later when I experienced it.
Posted by: Miguel | September 12, 2009 9:46 PM
Well, I don't think Feynman said that all entertainment is didactic. He said that everything truly didactic will be entertaining.
But I have to disagree even with this alternate interpretation, since many subjects aren't really entertaining to me (even though they might be for someone else). It's kinda subjective :)
Posted by: eddie | September 12, 2009 9:54 PM
Feynman wrote a book, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, that emphasised the joy of scientific discovery. It shows what the religious sheep are missing out on when they just accept made-up answers from authority.
The religious wolves are also missing out, but the power trip and baby botty sex may seem a consolation to them.
Posted by: Physicalist | September 12, 2009 10:16 PM
No, no, no. You're a different cuttle of fish altogether.
Posted by: Ryan | September 12, 2009 10:42 PM
I just finished reading a book called, Dont Be Such A Scientist and it was probably the worst book I have ever read.
http://www.islandpress.com/bookstore/details.php?prod_id=1872
He rants and raves about how scientists are condescending in thier presentation of ideas and how they focus too much on accuracy.
The guy actually likens "science" to a movie where the hero drives a truck into a bus full of kids in the last scene. Where as the movies he has done, flock of dodos and frizzle, is the correct way to do it, where the hero (by the way the Hero in flock of dodos is himself) is someone you can root for.
Posted by: JThompson | September 12, 2009 11:26 PM
@Ryan: Yeah, I knew to avoid that book based on who wrote it. Flock of Dodos sucked ass and wasn't popular with any audience, so he's the last one that should be lecturing people.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 12, 2009 11:33 PM
So Richard Feynman is one of those New Atheists who is destroying science education, I guess.
Posted by: Evolution SWAT | September 12, 2009 11:39 PM
@Dr. Myers: I don't think the gospels are dull. I find them a very good read, especially Jesus' moral teachings and lessons on humility.
I don't believe in the miracles...etc. but I do think that the good parts of the gospels (which are probably close to the teachings of the real, historical Jesus) are very valuable.
When I say I find the Bible interesting, it is much less interesting if I try to imagine it is infallible and treat it differently than any other world literature...
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 12, 2009 11:56 PM
As far as I've seen, Jesus' moral teachings were unoriginal platitudes mixed in amongst irrational self-debasing nonsense.
Posted by: Margaret | September 13, 2009 12:08 AM
Ryan,
Thanks for the opinion. When I saw that title on adverts I sighed and swore at just the title (well I swore more than once) and assumed it was some unicorn-loving, crystal-waving money-grabbing clown guaranteed to be found in a tent hiding from the rain at Glastonbury every year.
Posted by: Jeffrey E. | September 13, 2009 12:15 AM
Let's generalize to morality and religion, now shall we? Maybe instead of focusing on appeals to religious authorities and flashy miracles, maybe we should see if what Jesus and God supposedly said stand on their own merits. Yeah, and we can do that for all the holy books and all the books ever! But religious people can't do that...That's atheism!
Posted by: Marcus Ranumg | September 13, 2009 12:22 AM
Naked Bunny With a Whip writes:
So Richard Feynman is one of those New Atheists who is destroying science education, I guess.
From beyond the grave!!! Just like Darwin!!! (cue creepy zombie music)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 12:29 AM
@Ryan and Margaret,
PZ discussed Don't Be Such a Scientist in August: here is the link.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2009 12:35 AM
Evolution SWAT writes:
I do think that the good parts of the gospels (which are probably close to the teachings of the real, historical Jesus) are very valuable.
(eyeroll) How do you know what the teachings of the "real, historical" Jesus actually were??
Posted by: gypsytag | September 13, 2009 12:43 AM
#21
(which are probably close to the teachings of the real, historical Jesus)
what archeological evidence do we have for the historical jesus again?
just curious...
Posted by: llewelly | September 13, 2009 12:54 AM
Jesus was a good person, and certainly, he wouldn't embarrass anyone who wanted to believe he was a good person, so anything mean, stupid, or shameful was clearly added by later meddlers. If you have trouble understanding this, just look at any picture of Jesus - especially a natural picture that appears in a humble place, like a grilled cheese sandwich or a bumper sticker on a toilet seat.Posted by: Shaun Fletcher | September 13, 2009 12:59 AM
Evolution SWAT: "I don't believe in the miracles...etc. but I do think that the good parts of the gospels (which are probably close to the teachings of the real, historical Jesus) are very valuable."
That sounds like both massive cherry picking and also purely wishful thinking. You arent saying much more than 'The bits of the Gospels I like and agree with are good and those bits are the bits that are probably what Jesus really taught because I like Jesus'
Which is not very illuminating.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 1:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF3yNWvVwxg
SWAT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AH7g9sYH54
Posted by: windy | September 13, 2009 1:41 AM
Last scene? That's silly, that sort of thing belongs in "Materials and Methods".
Posted by: co | September 13, 2009 1:50 AM
#30 made me very, very happy.
Posted by: efrique | September 13, 2009 1:54 AM
Evolution SWAT:
Unless you cherry-pick egregiously, much of Jesus' explicit words and behaviour - if we're to accept the NT - frankly, suck.
Yes, there were a few good bits in the sermon on the mount. But there's plenty of horrible stuff.
In fact, let's just sample Matthew:
7:13-14, 8:21, 10:5-6, 10:14-15, 10:21, 10:28, 10:34-37, 12:31-32, 13:10-15, 15:4-7, 15:22-26, 19:29, 24:50-51, 25:30, 25:41, 25:46
All of which tells us - most people will go to hell, Jesus is inconsiderate of the recently bereaved, only some groups should get to hear Jesus' words (but if you don't want to listen, you're going to die horribly), Jesus will tear families apart, you must fear God because he willing and able to destroy body and soul in hell, Jesus has come to make families hate each other, not bring peace, don't love your kids too much, the only unforgiveable sin is speaking against the holy ghost (much worse than raping children), Jesus deliberately makes his message obscure so people will go to hell, Jesus thinks that children who curse their parents should be killed (apparently he didn't want to wash his hands before eating at someone else's dinner table, so decided to attack them with this), Jesus is mean and prejudiced refusing to heal someone because they're not of the right ethnic group, you should abandon wives and children, God will come when you least expect and "cut people asunder", people will be cast into outer darkness and everlasting fire, tormented forever.
[See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ for plenty more cruelty, injustice and intolerance. A most inspiring message.]
Posted by: Aquaria | September 13, 2009 2:00 AM
Jesus' moral teachings and lessons on humility
You're kidding, right?
The guy expected a fig tree to produce figs out of season, and cursed it when the poor thing couldn't cooperate. He was horrifically rude to his mother and other family members, often telling them to go away while he lectured guests in their own homes. He extorted money from a man who had already given him money. He outright said that he had come to sow dissent between people who followed him, and their loved ones. He threw a destructive, terroristic temper tantrum over a matter of doctrine (temple moneychangers).
And he apparently believed that his married mother was a virgin, and he himself was a deity.
The few good things he said does not negate the fact that Jesus was a psychotic prick.
Posted by: travc | September 13, 2009 2:09 AM
For entertainment, which after all is not primarily about teaching, there are some folks who really 'get it'.
I've heard/read discussions around "don't break suspension of disbelief" several times where one person was arguing that there was no problem with bad science since the audience were all idiots (not all that heartwarming, but common.) The nice part is that there are entertainers who argue the other side: actually being correct is better, and if some of the audience just happen to learn something new in the process, that can really add too the impact/entertainment value.
Penn and Teller have a nice (and actually pretty old fashioned) philosophy about how to structure stage shows. Basically a formula of elements which should be included. On that list is a 'bit of history' and 'learning something new'. It is all about being engaging.
For teachers, priorities are certainly different, but we can get a lot of benefit from mixing in some entertainment. It is still all about being engaging.
PS: Ever notice how the best dramas almost all have really funny bits (and visa versa)? Emotional (and philosophical) breadth of engagement synergies with depth.
Posted by: Travis | September 13, 2009 2:10 AM
Thanks PZ! I was surprised to see your post about this, I never actually expected you to be interested fopr real.
Posted by: Carolyn Ann | September 13, 2009 2:33 AM
You've hardly changed! :-)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Perhaps I should have...)
Carolyn Ann
Posted by: Em Finn | September 13, 2009 2:34 AM
>> >> People love to learn something
>> Yeah, right.
Depends on where you put the cut-off point between "People" and "Consumers" (AKA "Wastes of perfectly good biomass", AKA "Recycling project in need of completion").
Posted by: windy | September 13, 2009 2:36 AM
Hypocritical, too. If every Jewish man had to pay half a shekel as an offering to the temple, and they didn't accept foreign coin (at least from what I've read), what the hell did he expect people to do?
Posted by: Chris Hughes | September 13, 2009 2:56 AM
Back in the dear, dead days (almost) beyond recall, when the world was still in black and white, we in the UK sat entranced by the best TV history programmes ever. Presented by A J P Taylor, a little man in a rumpled tweed jacket and horn-rimmed spectacles, walking on to stand in front of a black background and talk, live, timing his lecture exactly to the half-hour slot. No visuals, and certainly no deadly music, and it was riveting!
I could do with more like that...
Posted by: csrster | September 13, 2009 4:00 AM
I think one can say that the Gospels are both good and original. Unfortunately what is good isn't original and what is original isn't good.
Posted by: Timothy | September 13, 2009 4:51 AM
PZ, can you please load up your book with bells and whistles? I'd buy a "special edition" that came with a PZ Myers-branded whistle and a string of jingle bells for a high price!
Posted by: Svetogorsk | September 13, 2009 5:46 AM
Jonathan Miller's three-part BBC documentary on atheism started with a wonderfully polemical address to camera in which he said that he wasn't going to bother with any visual/staging gimmicks as he thought the subject was quite interesting enough to begin with. He was right, but few other producers would dare to be quite so unvarnished these days.
You can watch the whole thing on YouTube - here's the bit I was referring to:
Posted by: windy | September 13, 2009 5:52 AM
The "St. Leibowitz" method of communicating science!
Posted by: MadScientist | September 13, 2009 6:47 AM
[OT] Goodbye to Norm Borlaug - an Iowa farmboy, a giant amongst agricultural scientists, and the greatest humanitarian of the past 100 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8253005.stm
Posted by: John Morales | September 13, 2009 6:55 AM
MadScientist, sad news, but thanks for sharing.
Norman Borlaug.
May his memory live on in history!
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 7:19 AM
Not. May the memory of the thousands of people who have died or been driven to kill themselves because of the "Green Revolution" go down in history.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/whose-water/turning-scarcity-into-abundance
http://www.voltairenet.org/article159305.html
Posted by: Oliver | September 13, 2009 7:30 AM
You want another example of R. Feynman being an excellent science communicator?
I only say this: O-ring in ice water.
Too obscure?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding, FCD | September 13, 2009 7:48 AM
Probably at least as far back as Shakespeare when he touched on pareidolia in Hamlet:Posted by: Richard Harris | September 13, 2009 8:46 AM
I'm amazed that the death of Norman Borlaug has been met with a response like # 49. I'd've only expected that from the anti-science camp.
Wasn't the balance sheet of human life & well-being definitely & firmly enhanced by Norman Borlaug, perhaps more so than by anyone else?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 8:52 AM
Since SC gave links that argue it was not, why don't you address the substance of her criticism instead of acting shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would disagree.
Posted by: Carlie | September 13, 2009 8:58 AM
I think Borlaug's worth was a mixed bag. Some of the strategies of the Green Revolution really aren't sustainable in the long term. Some of the other bad effects are because of population growth making certain strategies be overused in their environment, not the agricultural strategies per se. It comes down more to whether you tie all of the spinoff effects him directly or not. You can't just say "pure good" or "pure bad" about what he did (which no one here has done yet, I'm just saying).
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 13, 2009 9:12 AM
'strange gods before me', the reason that i can't do that is because sometimes people unfairly bias what they write, to defend their own agenda, & i've no means of determining if that's the case here.
I'm actually in the office working right now, & later this afternoon plan to go out on the bike, before our guests come over later, so i've not got the time to spend researching this, assuming it was even possible to do so.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 13, 2009 9:27 AM
As far as communicating science to laymen, I've found that most are interested as long as you don't get too bogged down in technical detail. Unfortunately, it's the technical details that most scientists find interesting.
My parents are both intelligent people with no technical background who have birthed a physicist and an electrical engineer (and a soccer-blogger), so my brother and I have had to learn to summarize what we do in a way that is simple enough for my parents to brag on us without confusing their friends.
In my experience, many people really do enjoy learning. There are just many media competing for their time and attention. Put me on a cross-country flight or put me in a party full of strangers, though, and I can usually find something scientific that will interest at least one or two of my neighbors.
There's a reason why we love science. The challenge is in communicating that to laymen without their having to solve Schroedinger's equation.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2009 10:02 AM
SC, OM writes:
Not. May the memory of the thousands of people who have died or been driven to kill themselves because of the "Green Revolution" go down in history.
Set that against the huge die-off that other parts of the world would almost certainly have experienced without high-yield grains.
Determining where a person's actions fall on the balance between "good" and "bad" is difficult and depends a great deal on prevailing knowledge. Perhaps in a few hundred years, the "green revolution" will be reviled, but at the time, for many people, it spelled survival. It may spell doom for larger chunks of humanity hundreds of years from now - we simply have no way of telling.
Meanwhile, you set thousands against millions. It must be nice to be so sure in your ideas that you can operate on such a narrow perspective. You probably consider yourself "moral" too, right? How amusing.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 10:05 AM
Then fuck off with your "anti-science" accusations.
Idiot.
Carlie:
Not really, because he's been politically active in promoting policies that have been and will be (fucking AGRA) disastrous.
Posted by: Colgate Boy | September 13, 2009 10:06 AM
I predict that "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" will be much more lucid, informative, and entertaining than my own hitpiece, and will sell far more copies as well. Yet, for reasons I can't entirely identify, I'm certain his book will still be useless.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 10:14 AM
This profit-driven agenda is reviled now by people in the parts of the world where it's been pushed by people like Borlaug and imposed by the World Bank. It's spelled doom for millions already, and people in these countries have opposed and are opposing it and its spread. You don't know what you're talking about, Ranum, as usual, and I have no patience for you.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 10:14 AM
How I wish people would not trot out insulting statements on subjects they have no idea about. The Book of Kells is not filled with "gegaws"-- each of the illuminated letters and shapes in the book is heavily symbolic and functions as a tool to allow the monks who read it to further meditate on the meaning of scripture. In fact, the geometric patterns themselves are meditation devices designed to focus the mind on the deeper, unlockable meaning of scripture.
Perhaps PZ belongs to the brand of atheists that believes "if I don't believe it, why should I be informed about it"-- but frankly I think that makes us all look like idiots. What's more, even if medieval illuminators were Christians, they produced a beautiful, elegant art that is part of *human* history over and above any religious context. I think it is only fair to them to understand what they were trying to do rather than pretend that their work was an elaborate version of doodling on your page because you are bored in class.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 10:18 AM
Nice poe, Victoria.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 13, 2009 10:19 AM
Researcher uncovers secrets of Kells 'angels'
And the secret is: free-fusion stereocomparison
Posted by: Dustin | September 13, 2009 10:21 AM
High-yield crops are a phallocentric tool of the industrial patriarchy, and they exploit the plant genetic resources of developing countries. People should be more allowed to self-determine by starving to death. I can't understand why anyone like Norman Borlaug, who performed the ignoble deed of feeding untold millions, should be regarded as a hero.
Good nutrition is just another expression of western imperialism. Why do we insist on preventing childhood blindness in developing countries by forcing beta carotene on them? What right to we have to prevent horrifying birth defects by fortifying food with vitamins?
I suppose next, people will try to venerate Louis Pasteur...
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Another moron who prefers sarcasm to addressing actual actions and the effects of political projects. How tiresome.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 10:29 AM
Dustin, I'm sure you think you're being funny, but topical humor actually has to be topical. Watching you kick around a strawman is just pathetic.
Posted by: Dan J | September 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Oh, designed to do nothing, eh? Just like most religious text.
It's beautiful artwork (in my opinion). I find a great deal of religiously inspired, or religiously supported, art beautiful and fascinating.
Any theological meaning it might have means nothing to atheists (again, simply my opinion) because theology doesn't mean anything at all to us. It's mental masturbation at best. I, for one, couldn't care less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 13, 2009 12:54 PM
SC, i apologize if you thought i'd accused you of having an anti-science agenda, although if you read what i actually wrote, it wasn't an accusation as such.
But i do see that you have another agenda.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 12:59 PM
And what is your agenda, Richard? To make unsupported accusations based on matters you admit you do not understand?
Posted by: spondee | September 13, 2009 1:11 PM
Beepers? Beepers?! We don't need no stinking beepers!
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 1:18 PM
Indeed I do. To promote agricultural systems that are sustainable, contribute little if at all to global warming, don't poison the soil or water, don't waste water, preserve and enrich rather than deplete the soil, provide good food to farmers and others, don't force people off their land, increase scientific knowledge and cooperation among growers themselves, and are based on and contribute to food security and democratic participation for poor people rather than impoverishing and marginalizing them while profiting corporations. This is an agenda in which empirical science plays a central role.
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 13, 2009 1:25 PM
s g b m - my only agenda is to knock religion, & religious thinking. There seems to be some of the latter with regard to Norman Borlaug's legacy.
It seems to me that if the green revolution becomes unsustainable to any significant extent - say - if crop yields fell back to what they were in the 1960's, then there's going to be mass starvation.
I also recognize that there's a lot more that people could do. Here in the UK, it'd be possible for many people to 'farm their gardens'. If cultural forces & political will allowed, & if it were taken up by many countries of the rich 'Western' nations, this could make a difference in demand for food in the global markets. But could it be enough? I admit that i'm out of my depth here.
Just for the record, we do grow some of our own food, & we plan on growing more.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 1:31 PM
You're an ignorant twit.
Then stop digging (comment-wise, that is).
Good.
Posted by: MrBold | September 13, 2009 1:40 PM
Pharyngulite alert-
Here's a poll that needs fixing:
http://apps.facebook.com/my_polls/index.php/main/vote?poll_id=13874&src=feed_poll_url&tc=1000#/my_polls/index.php/main/vote?poll_id=13874&_fb_qsub=apps.facebook.com
Posted by: IaMoL | September 13, 2009 1:45 PM
Have you looked in a mirror lately.There are a number of profane doodlings within many of the illuminated manuscripts which are prankish or petulant expressions from the artists. To believe they all have some mystical significance is to be ignorant of human nature.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 1:49 PM
Here's Vandana Shiva almost 20 years ago:
http://livingheritage.org/green-revolution.htm
Posted by: Tom Wood | September 13, 2009 1:59 PM
I think the story structure of The Hero's Journey can be used to lead someone into appreciating a technical subject. Start the story in their common world, then introduce the unusual as an enticement into the strange world of the unknown. Make it a real journey of discovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth
Tell it as a story about someone you know who started out not knowing about whatever your subject is, then how they came to benefit from learning it. Even if that someone is fictional, it's still a valid story because somewhere there is someone who actually made the journey.
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 13, 2009 1:59 PM
SC, name-calling is an infantile strategy.
Also, producing examples of support from one side of a contentious issue does not prove that you are right.
You seem to have taken an extreme position on something that only 'history' will judge. We just don't know how things will pan out, or would've panned out if there'd not been a 'green revolution'.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 2:17 PM
It was a simple statement of fact. And bite me.
Bullshit. As I've pointed out, this has been ongoing for over 40 years, and the results have been in evidence for a very long time. As I've also pointed out, Borlaug was a conscious promoter of wronheaded agricultural programs up until his death.
Here are some reports for you to get started:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/agriculture-iaastd/
Posted by: vanitas | September 13, 2009 2:25 PM
Svetogorsk - thanks for the link to Jonathan Miller. It´s great stuff.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 13, 2009 2:37 PM
ah, the Book of Kells. As a former Art History student, I really wanted to have a look at it, but then when I actually got to Dublin I didn't because I only had 4 days in Dublin, and spending one of them waiting in line to look at a double-page of the book just didn't seem worth it.
I went to the National Museum and looked at the awesome collection of Bronze Age jewelry instead :-)
Posted by: Peter G | September 13, 2009 2:51 PM
"People love to learn something" is an uncharacteristically erroneous statement from a man with such a precise mind. No doubt the people who attended his lectures were part of that minority that does enjoy learning new ideas but that hardly justifies generalizing to all of humanity. This is not so. Most people, I believe, are perfectly satisfied with a very limited range of ideas. Some were full up once they'd mastered basic bodily functions like eating and sleeping. Let's face it: for a significant majority of humans the suspension of disbelief when watching a movie or engaging in some religious rite comes as naturally as breathing and is equally unconscious.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2009 2:55 PM
SC, OM, writes:
This profit-driven agenda is reviled now by people in the parts of the world where it's been pushed by people like Borlaug and imposed by the World Bank.
It is reviled by some, or is it universally reviled?
Everything I'd ever heard about Borlaug's work was that it "saved millions from starvation." And, yes, there are people who are offended by the profit-driven motives of others. Considering the 1st world's generally ineffective response to starvation (admittedly, usually because it's being used as a weapon by politicians) it seems to be the general consensus that a whole lot of people would have died ugly deaths were it not for the green revolution.
Generally, people's reaction to Borlaug has been favorable.
It's spelled doom for millions already
That's up from the "thousands" you quoted earlier.
So you claim that it would have been better if, as various places claim, hundreds of millions of people had starved to save those thousands? Have you also considered that those thousands might have starved to death before they got old enough to commit suicide over indebtedness? More to the point, do I understand correctly that you're somehow blaming Norman Borlaug for the farmers' indebtedness and choice to end their lives?
and people in these countries have opposed and are opposing it and its spread.
Someone always opposes everything. Do those "people" in the articles you quoted have a better solution? Are they prepared to tell everyone "hey - time to starve, now"?
You don't know what you're talking about, Ranum, as usual, and I have no patience for you.
I notice a familiar trend. Instead of argument and reason, SC offers table-thumping and vigorous assertion. And, as usual, you dodge the meat of the question, which was:
Who are you to say whether Borlaug should or should not have done what he did?
I'm guessing that you're nobody, with nothing to offer, which is why you can only table-thhump. You're probably some comfortable academic ideologue sitting in an air conditioned office saying millions of people you don't know, and who didn't ask for your precious suggestion, should have starved. I'm guessing they don't care a whole lot about your theories about how the world ought to be.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 3:03 PM
However "extreme" she is to be concerned about water scarcity and privatization, Borlaug has been at least as extreme in the opposite direction. So your criticism is not exactly well-founded. You've taken a side in a debate, in which you admit ignorance, on the basis of fame and authority.
Posted by: stogoe | September 13, 2009 3:04 PM
I got to both the National Museum and the Book of Kells at Trinity College when I was in Dublin, and the Chester Beatty Library as well - they've got a huge collection of ancient religious texts.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2009 3:13 PM
The whole starvation/population issue puts "morality" in a nutshell, to me. We literally have no way of knowing what would have happened had other options been chosen than the "green revolution." Perhaps hundreds of millions would have died. Perhaps that would have triggered a human understanding of our need to control population and achieve sustainable agriculture. Or, perhaps it would have simply resulted in death, chaos, destabilization of nuclear-armed powers, and more problems. The decisions that were made at that time were made with available information and, perhaps, the people who made those decisions felt they were doing a good thing. What they were doing was making decisions that had vast consequences for huge numbers of people - how could they make a "moral" decision given partial information. You can't, but you must. So, I think people make decisions like that based on their narrow view of the present and short-term future. Saying "it's the best I can do with the information I have" isn't moral - it's just self-justification.
We should probably blame everything on the bastard who invented agriculture. If only he'd known what it was eventually going to do!
Unfortunately, we can't really think ahead because our ability to predict the future is pretty short term. Maybe SC's right and a massive die-off in the 70's would have been preferable. It's pretty obvious that if you give humans better food-making technology, you don't get fewer, happier, humans - you get more humans. So, did Borlaug's work make the population bomb worse? Maybe putting off the inevitable for a few decades was worth it for the people who would have died.
SC, I was just reading the references you posted links to. Interesting stuff. But it's about pesticide and herbicide-resistant strains. I thought Borlaug's crowning achievement was high-yield varieties, not the stuff you're complaining about. Are you conflating current business practices surrounding non-reseeding varieties and no-till farming with Borlaug's high-yield rice and wheat? The "green revolution" has certainly turned into big business, but if you recall, at the time, Borlaug was attacked precisely because his strains were capable of reproducing. Aren't many of the indebtedness problems that you're complaining about a result of later "monetizing" of the green revolution?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 3:13 PM
Marcus Ranum apparently thinks people are not still starving.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2009 3:19 PM
strange gods before me writes:
Marcus Ranum apparently thinks people are not still starving.
WTF are you talking about? I am aware that sh*tloads of people are starving. The question is "would starvation have been the problem in the 1970s, or today." Not "is starvation a problem."
I don't think I actually have an opinion about this topic. As I said earlier, everything I've read generally credits Borlaug's work with having been favorable to humanity at large - hence his Nobel prize and whatnot. In the long run people may look back and realize that it was a bad idea. But I just don't see how we can sort through in the here-and-now and say: better to have had massive die-offs due to starvation in the 70s - maybe that would have taught them to control their population and aim for sustainability.
Huge complex problems like this with massive downstream effects are great case-studies for teaching people how little "morals" mean.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 3:30 PM
Your nihilism means that this is yet another discussion to which you have nothing to contribute. You make no argument either way, yet you criticize only SC for making an argument, and not Richard. But I'm aware that hypocrisy means nothing to you, so I'll just try to remind myself that there's no point to engaging with you, and hopefully I'll be able to refrain from being trolled by you again.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 3:37 PM
That's my policy. It's sometimes hard to stick to when the jackass is making ridiculous accusations, but I find it keeps me from wasting time.
Thanks for jumping in, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 3:51 PM
Set that against the huge die-off that other parts of the world would almost certainly have experienced without high-yield grains.
As someone else said: it's a mixed bag.
high yield grains are great cultures where there is sufficient water.
horrible idea where there is not, as has been the case in many places where they have been adopted.
...so you yourself can't generalize by saying one offsets the other.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 3:51 PM
I can't help it; he's an effective troll. He says things like 'You probably consider yourself "moral" too, right?' which I initially interpret to mean that he believes he has a more moral alternative to offer. I forget that he means nothing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 3:56 PM
SC, I was just reading the references you posted links to. Interesting stuff. But it's about pesticide and herbicide-resistant strains.
you're not terribly observant, then, are you?
from the first article:
That's the major issue; always has been.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 3:58 PM
Poe, my ass. Thankfully being an atheist doesn't mean scoffing at beautiful works of art simply because the producer had religious beliefs, as (may I remind you) did probably 95% of all artists up until the 18th century. The fact that it's religious, and religiously meaningful, does not invalidate its value or its beauty. It is simply meaning that no longer has any viability for us, just like the beautiful hieroglyphs. But suggesting that hieroglyphs are gegaws designed for nothing more than distraction would be factually *false* just like it is false to suggest that most of the Kells work is meaningless. It isn't; you just don't LIKE the meaning.
And of course there are sarcastic marginalia. A lot of political and religious commentary goes on in manuscripts and is equally valuable. That doesn't contradict the fact that the major illustrations are absolutely intended to mean something.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 4:07 PM
may I remind you) did probably 95% of all artists up until the 18th century.
really?
you have a cite for that? And, do you even really believe it?
do you really think all artists were only religiously inspired up till that point, or might you consider what art SURVIVED to be viewed today?
now who had money to pay for and preserve art in the 16th and 17th centuries I wonder...
Sometimes I think people who make comments like yours have never bothered to study what art was actually being produced historically, or ever visited a large private collection even.
here's another big inspiration, one of many that still has a major influence to this day:
sex.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 4:25 PM
@Victoria
That wasn't a poe? Then, I would suggest you watch PZ's commentary from Expelled.Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 4:35 PM
just like it is false to suggest that most of the Kells work is meaningless.
I'm sure the work had implied meaning, like any fictional story might have various themes.
It's that the theme itself is pointless.
Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | September 13, 2009 4:46 PM
Sorry for the Off-topic, but if it's okay, I'd like to throw this into the comments Feel free to ignore or delete:
Somewhere between March and this Friday, I realized that God actually doesn't exist. It's an interesting experience.
I was raised fundamentalist, and it wasn't too difficult for me to see once by the time I graduated from Bible college that I'd been seriously misinformed about God, so I learned more about theology and about science, and converted to a much more liberal Christianity. I never learned much science in secondary school- as much because of my own laziness as because of my church-taught skepticism of science- so it was exciting to read about the science I hadn't understood, and especially about the theory of evolution, and see that it was a concept that had a real beauty to it. I have so many gaps in my education that I only understand about half of what I read about science now, but I keep reading because I want to understand more. And I read Pharyngula every day, because he makes me laugh, and because sometimes he tells me things about science that I didn't know before.
In March, a young student of mine was murdered by a stranger, a serial killer. It was one of those things that people talk about to frighten parents, but you know it almost never happens in real life. Almost never is not the same as never. I guess a lot of people start taking a hard look at what they believe in situations like that; I read that Charles Darwin had a roughly similar experience in his own thinking. I started reading more, trying to figure out some way of understanding God in a way that would make sense with the world that really exists. She was a really nice kid, with a kind, open heart. She died in pain, and terrified, and there is no sane human being in the world who would have watched without helping her. How could God?
This Friday, I asked myself a question I hadn't really asked before: what if there weren't any books? If God exists, then he exists in the real world around us. I asked myself to put the Bible and the books about God out of my mind for a few minutes, and to consider what I could understand about God just by looking at his work in the world. I found myself coming to a kind of surprising answer: outside of the books, in the real world, there really isn't anything at all that would indicate the existence of God. In fact, what I see around me flatly contradicts the idea that there is any sort of loving spirit managing the affairs of this world, even in an indirect way.
A tiny epiphany, and a huge one. I think the quality of the light around me actually changed as I wrapped my head around this. It's so simple. I don't have to make myself crazy trying to find ways to believe something that isn't true. There's nothing wrong with me because I've stopped seeing what people around me see. I don't lose my morals or ethics or any part of who I am by looking around me and acknowledging that God was a story, like Santa- a pretty story, but not one that I'm obliged to believe. I felt... freed. I felt like I'd suddenly grown from a child to a woman, all inside my own mind, in a few minutes.
I still went to church this morning. Is that weird? I like singing in the choir, and we were planning to go out to lunch to celebrate one of my friends' birthday. It was interesting, sitting there enjoying singing with my friends, thinking, 'This is an entirely human organization. I can stay because I like it, or I can stop because I feel like it, and the choice is entirely up to me.'
Imagine that: my choices are entirely up to me. What shall I do with the freedom to live by my own mind and my own conscience? Don't bother answering- I'm going to decide for myself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 5:04 PM
a kind of surprising answer
not around here.
;)
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | September 13, 2009 5:04 PM
Thanks, Harmless Eccentric,
The thing I most treasured, when I reached the same conclusion as you, was that suddenly my head belonged to me. I'd grown up believing in a God that heard and vetted my every thought, and that I somehow had to pray to him in my mind, be open to his messages, censor all my thinking, and live in fear that he would disapprove of the things that popped in and out of my brain. I tried to pray in my head, remember scriptures, "sing" even, so that my mind wouldn't be open to evil.
It seems cripplingly stupid now--"talking" in my head at all hours of the day to some imaginary being. I still treasure that fact that this isn't true. My mind belongs to me, my thoughts are my own. There's a tremendous relief in that privacy of thought and imagination. A wonderful relaxation in allowing the mind to work without forever trying to repress it. It was like being enslaved--Blake understood "mind forg'd manacles". Now my head is my ultimate private space--my peaceful oasis and whatever is in it is my personal property.
Some might find private head space strange or unexceptional. But for me it's still one of the great things about not being a 'believer' any more.
Good luck to you, and don't feel a hypocrite about still enjoying the choir. You don't need to abandon everything that made you the person you are (at least not straight away:)). I haven't attended Church in years--but I still love an old-fashioned Christmas carol service with candles and manger scenes. It evokes the happy times of childhood and it's nice to return to 'Eden' just once in a while.
The tragedy of your murdered student reminds us how fleeting and cruel and beautiful life is. Too fleeting, in my opinion, to fritter away having 'faith' or marking time until we get to 'paradise'.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 5:16 PM
@Ichthyc
Yes, I really do think that 90-odd percent of people held some sort of religious belief. A lot of art has come down to us simply by accident; in fact a lot has come down by being buried in swamps and then cut out by unsuspecting people looking for peat. I did NOT say that religion *inspired* all art; only that most of these people held a belief of some sort. It's amazing how people misread if they want to hear something outrageous. Anyhow, most societies had some at least rudimentary/nominal religious culture. Not having a religion (ANY religion) was not seen as particularly appealing up until recently.
It's a shame that so many atheist apparently think it's perfectly grand to smugly dismiss a beautiful piece of artwork simply because they disagree with it. YES, the meaning is essentially wrong. But NO, it isn't "meaningless" any more than aboriginal drawings of kangaroos are meaningless. And to say it's there as a distraction to the text is *inaccurate.* Can we please be accurate? Is it so offensive to ask that?
And as for this Poe nonsense, really, do you honestly think that because I happen to value art and see the need to interpret it in context, that I'm some sort of wild fundamentalist? That's pathetic.
Posted by: llewelly | September 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Well, I can't google it up for you right now, as google seems to be non-functional, but John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts has built up a huge list of high-quality, relatively short articles on basic science bits. I recommend you set yourself a goal of reading 2 articles each week from the list. Once you're used to that, move up to 3 articles a week.Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | September 13, 2009 5:20 PM
llewelly @103- Thanks! I've bookmarked the site and am starting to look at the section you recommended now.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Yes, I really do think that 90-odd percent of people held some sort of religious belief.
saying that 90% of a given group of people held certain beliefs, and saying that all of them were only motivated by those beliefs in their art are two entirely different things.
a lot has come down by being buried in swamps
WTF?
I did NOT say that religion *inspired* all art
sorry, but as worded, that's exactly what your statement I quoted implies.
It's not MY problem you aren't at all clear. Frankly, I'd accuse you of backpedaling here.
It's a shame that so many atheist apparently think it's perfectly grand to smugly dismiss a beautiful piece of artwork simply because they disagree with it.
It's a shame that smugly ignorant morons like yourself continue to make strawmen of atheists.
A work of art can indeed be found attractive, even if the message it invokes is an ugly or supercilious one.
take your condescension and shove it.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 5:27 PM
@Victoria
You misrepresented everything PZ was saying in a hilariously ambiguous way.
That part reads like the Courtier's Reply.
How is knitting any different? Nothing is sacred, remember?
Again, it comes off as the Courtier's Reply.Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 5:44 PM
My comment does not imply that art is all religiously motivated. What I said was that it was foolish to "scoff at art because artists held religious beliefs." If you are going to scoff at art because the person who made it was religious, you would in practice have to scoff at almost all art.
One of the reasons I brought up the general tendency toward religion is that one of the above posters made a comment about how by happy coincidence s/he managed to see some "bronze age" work instead of Kells. Obviously bronze age people had religious beliefs too, and so seeing their art is not "superior" to seeing Christian art; just different.
Courtier's argument would be applicable if I was asking him to stop criticizing theology. I am not. I am asking him to *not tell lies* about what something means. It is one thing to say "John Calvin is bunk" and an entirely different thing to say "John Calvin said that we should all eat babies and die." That would reflect poorly on the speaker and I think saying that Kells is full of pictures INTENDED to distract from the text is false and unhelpful. He is welcome to say "I think Kells looks stupid and ridiculous." Or alternately "I think religious art is pointless." Art is about opinion.
Oh, and my colleagues in textile history would suggest that knitting is, in fact, a quite legitimate form of art and one that has been ignored largely due to the fact that it was produced by women.
If the "courtier's reply" is trotted out every time someone asks an atheist to be simply honest, then people ought to be irritated by us. Used in this way it's just a smug way of putting your fingers in your ears and going "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
Posted by: MadScientist | September 13, 2009 5:54 PM
@SC, OM #49: Sorry, that just doesn't fly. The articles you point to don't have any significant amount of truth in them (not to mention they're the same article). For example:
"Through its emphasis on high-yield seeds, this agricultural model replaced drought-resistant local crop varieties with water-guzzling crops. "
Oh, boo hoo hoo, the Evil West is killing off the Good Stuff from the Ancient East. Well, that claim is bullshit; if we're talking about rice, the so-called "drought resistant" local crop wasn't drought resistant and relied on natural annual flooding for irrigation. What pushed water consumption up are increasing demand and multiple croppings per year (up to 3 for some varieties of rice as opposed to the typical once per year). Does that put stress on the ecosystem? Goddamn yeah, but if you prefer millions more starving to death you can persist with the Old Ways. In fact that article you point to seems to be all about how the Old Ways were better and how the Evil West is pushing fossil fuel consumption, ground water consumption, and environmental destruction on a victim population; great stuff for drug-addled hippies, but dishonest and ignorant at best.
Norm Borlaug did great work; it is no fault of his if people don't use tools sensibly and if governments are happy to let populations grow well beyond what the environment can support.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 13, 2009 6:00 PM
Do I have this right? Victoria is whining (yes, Vickie, you're whining) because she thinks the Book of Kells is a masterpiece of art (something that PZ admitted) but objects to PZ referring to the art as "gee-gaws."
The point is, Victoria, that the art doesn't hide the religious message in the Book of Kells. If you polish a turd it doesn't turn into an emerald.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 6:05 PM
Nope. I'm whining and/or attempting to have an intelligent conversation in which I am the minority because PZ (who is welcome to call whatever he likes a geegaw) says that the pictures "don't make the content clearer or more palatable — they allow one to appreciate it while ignoring the message (and a good thing, too — it's just the dull old gospels turned into art)" and is trying to use this to suggest that unlike Kells, science is all about understanding things.
He is actually incorrect. The decorations in Kells ARE there to make the text more understandable. Just not to him.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 13, 2009 6:10 PM
Oh, so you're whining that PZ doesn't understand and/or appreciate the message of the geegaws. Okay, got it. The geegaws are important to you and you're upset that they're not important to PZ.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 6:12 PM
@Victoria
I accept you weren't trying to be a poe, OK? And no one is saying knitting isn't valuable or that it isn't a form of art. The point is that the Book of Kells is art, like knitting. I think you are asking us to not dismiss a specific version of the Gospels (a Bronze Age mythology) because of the added meaning its illustrations have for Christians. The pattern for the Emperor's new clothing is worthless.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 6:18 PM
@Himself: HONESTY is important to me. Also, you're a dick.
@aratina: Thank you for being polite. I am not asking you not to dismiss anything; please do dismiss the Gospels and whatever art you dislike/perceive as un-useful. But I am asking that PZ/atheists in general not make untrue statements about what something *means.* If the illustrations ARE intended to give greater clarity, then that should be recognized; you could mock the culture for finding meaning in such (perhaps overly) complicated symbology, but it's not accurate to suggest that it lacks the very meaning that it was created for.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 6:19 PM
if we're talking about rice
no.
we're talking about growing high yield, high water use agricultural plants in areas that DON'T have a lot of water.
ffs, man, they DO typically have a lot of water where they grow rice in India.
now, on the flip of that, where they grow rice in California, they DON'T, and this crop and corn and other high water use crops have had a major impact on water usage in the entire state.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 6:30 PM
If the illustrations ARE intended to give greater clarity, then that should be recognized
so, if I make a the first letter of a sentence ten times larger than the rest, decorated with different colored swirls of ink and embossed with gold leaf, that makes the meaning of the letter of the first sentence, or the rest of the sentence, clearer?
Is that really the argument you want to make?
If you want to make that argument, why aren't ALL bibles decorated with insular art? Why, those that don't use insular art in their bibles must be trying to deliberately obfuscate the meaning of the prose therein!
the bastards!
seriously, you want to make the argument that THIS:
really clarifies the meaning of the text following?
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 6:32 PM
By the way:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Norman_Borlaug
WTF?
First, you've provided no evidence for these assertions. Second, the UCS, the IAASTD report, Navdanya (Shiva's organization) and the farmers it works with, Via Campesina, and many other oganizations and coalitions have described, studied, and fought for alternatives. Alternatives were present then as well. Shiva says:
There were political and economic motivations for pushing the GR that shouldn't be ignored.
Corporations, USAID, the World Bank, and some governments have pushed these things on people. For decades. What planet are you on?
The population could be fed with existing technologies if there was a transformation in agriculture and major political transformations. The environment can't support the system of intensive agriculture Borlaug has championed (and your assumption that this system provides food to poor people and farmers is naive). Right up until the time of his death he was doing PR for Monsanto, pushing claims about GM crops that lack scientific support, pretending to speak for poor people in Africa about what they want, and dismissing substantive criticisms with accusations of elitism. I don't doubt that he believed he was right, so I wouldn't call him a shill, but he was willfully blind to the real effects of the programs he was promoting and to the legitimate reasons people have for resisting them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 6:32 PM
oops, I mean THIS:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 13, 2009 6:36 PM
So I was right, you're all bent out of shape because PZ doesn't care about the geegaws but you do.
Incidentally, why did you make a misandrist insult to me? Would you have appreciated it if I called you a cunt?
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 6:40 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. :)
Those patterns are intended to reflect the meaning of the text, in that the Gospels themselves are a complex puzzle with multivalent symbolism. In order to approach the holy book, monks would study the carpet pages (the geometric ones) and the pictures. The geometrics are part of a focusing technique as well as meditation and the pictures are glosses for the text. For instance, there's a very famous picture of a man with otters that represents the life of a hiberno-saxon saint whose life story is related to the passage of the gospel being illustrated. It's incredibly meaningful and very, actually, weird. Very dense. Accusing Kells of not having meaning is plain silly, since it's so packed full of meaning that it's a challenge to unpick all the strands.
And don't be silly, of course not all cultures use the same art for the same understanding of books. That's a hiberno-saxon technique, from that culture. The Italians had an entirely different way of meditating (and actually did a lot of things differently, leading to problems between the churches)... their manuscripts reflect that.
Basically Kells is unintelligible to most of us, now. But it would have been HIGHLY intelligible to the monks who used it; we have plenty of documentation from the middle ages about how "useful" (relatively) these types of texts were.
Posted by: Carlie | September 13, 2009 6:40 PM
SC, I wasn't aware of all of the advocacy Borlaug did; I'll have to look it up. I admit, from what I've read and seen of him in interviews, I saw him as one of those scientists who do all of the basic work but don't concern themselves with exactly how their research is implemented.
HarmlessEccentric, good luck to you. There are many people here and other places who are ex-fundamentalists. I took several years after losing my faith to wean myself off of church, and I know a decent number of atheists who are perfectly happy attending church. Dan Barker's autobiography is a good read to look at some of the things another fundamentalist (minister, at that) went through as his views changed.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 6:41 PM
Look, Himself, I don't care. Call me whatever you want; your entire comment thread on here has been rude, unhelpful and trollish. Run along.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 13, 2009 6:50 PM
I do care that you're whining about something that's of no interest or concern to anyone but you. However you want to whine long and loud about it. If you think that pointing this out is trolling then that's your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that you're trying to pick a fight over something that's so trivial as to be utterly meaningless.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 7:06 PM
This is from 2000, but it makes some good points:
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html
Posted by: ckerst | September 13, 2009 7:07 PM
Holy crap! PZ is the same age as me! Man do I feel like a loser.
Posted by: eddie | September 13, 2009 7:07 PM
"...and I would've gotten away with it if they hadn't had too many kids." - borlaug's last words?
What's sustainable in some cases can be dirastrous with a change in the wind. Perhaps the worst part of the 'green revolution' was the delusion that malthus was beaten. This allowed corporations to pretend that human resources are infinite. Combine this with the abusive doctrines of rcc and all the supposed benefits of borlaug quickly evaporate.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 7:09 PM
Those patterns are intended to reflect the meaning of the text, in that the Gospels themselves are a complex puzzle with multivalent symbolism.
I call bullshit.
go ahead and analyze the illustration I posted for us.
what do all the little spirals and filagree decoration MEAN, professor?
If it really were a case of decoration clarify theme (rather than apologists forcing meaning where there is likely none), then you haven't addressed my earlier question as to why there are so few examples of this, and why they all differ as to illustrative technique.
or why they differ from period to period.
or why there is even a definition for "insular art" to begin with.
YOU are the one who is entirely confused about the function of art.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 7:11 PM
It's incredibly meaningful and very, actually, weird. Very dense.
have you ever really LOOKED at the back of your hand?
I fucking hate apologists.
post hoc rationalizations for the win!
Posted by: eddie | September 13, 2009 7:25 PM
Hi Kel, OM, I read the articles you linked with interest and largely agree what you are arguing. There was one bit that took me aback; under the local arrangements that shiva helps organise, the distribution of water resource was changed from being proportional to land area to being proportional to size of family.
I know that, on the face of it, this can seem progressive but are there safeguards to stop this incentivising 'baby farming'?
I haven't seen where shiva herself discusses this.
Oh, and victoria the voluntary victim, take your strawmen and whining elsewhere. Nobody claimed that the wankers-over the book of kells don't claim to get an extra bit of juice out of the pretty pictures. It was made clear that this was yet another example of their dishonesty and delusion. You have not made a case otherwise. Where is the evidence that your meaning is not delusion?
Where is your evidence?
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 7:28 PM
I explained its function. If you don't think it could have functioned that way, you're contradicting what these people said about their own art. What do you mean, few examples? There are quite a number of examples! Kells is unique, of course, as they all are. I don't see what that really has to do with it, though; even if an item is one-of-a-kind, it could still have meaning to the people who made it.
All illustrative techniques are going to differ, because different people see different things as meaningful. There are a number of insular manuscripts; there are also a lot of Italian manuscripts and German and French and they are ALL different. Every culture has a different way of imparting meaning.
Obviously your hand does have meaning-- if you're a doctor, and you know what to look for.
It just seems so silly to act like art that was specifically intended to transmit meaningful data or experience (as well as beauty, certainly) is meaningless for no reason other than because it is difficult to understand-- or even because it is pretty.
Posted by: JefFlyingV, The Thrill Is Gone | September 13, 2009 7:32 PM
I have always enjoyed looking at the Book of Kells for its artistry and caligraphy. I ended up getting an apreciation of Celtic Art which I have transferred to stained glass window design. It was more than pictures on a page for the designers. It is still a beautifully detailed work that illustrates a book of mythology.
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 7:33 PM
@eddie
Voluntary victim, indeed.
Yes, these Christian meanings are wrong! Yes they are "delusion!" But they are still MEANINGS.
If you want a reference for the medieval interpretation of carpet pages and narrative scenes, I'd start with Snyder's Medieval Art and Illuminated Manuscripts by Christopher De Hamil. There has been a huge amount of scholarly research done on this in the last 20 years.
All I have been trying to say, which nobody will apparently grant me here, is that these illustrations are not "geegaws that don't make the content clearer or more palatable — they allow one to appreciate it while ignoring the message." They aren't.
Posted by: eddie | September 13, 2009 7:37 PM
Sorry for mixing up my OMs, SC. The BoK is getting to me.
Posted by: JefFlyingV, Perkin's Wiggle | September 13, 2009 7:41 PM
The knot work is representative of eternity, a never ending line if I remember right.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 7:56 PM
No prob.
Huh. I guess I wouldn't worry overmuch about it if there's no evidence that it's having that effect.
***
By the way, I've posted this link before, but in case anyone's interested here's the recent and very good film FLOW: For Love of Water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2o4RniDCOE
Posted by: Paguroidea | September 13, 2009 8:19 PM
I had to chuckle when I went to read this science communication post!
The ad at the top was from the Journalism School of Columbia University. "Experienced Health & Science Journalists" "Learn more about the 9-month MA program beginning 2010" "Journalism matters"
Scienceblogs looks like a good place for them to be advertising.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 8:33 PM
is meaningless for no reason other than because it is difficult to understand
like I said, take your condescensing courtier's reply and shove it.
just because you can find people who force rationalizations onto design, doesn't mean such post-hoc rationalizations are accurate.
ever taken a rorshach test?
Posted by: Victoria | September 13, 2009 8:43 PM
Ichthyic, you started out by making decent arguments, but now it's all "shove it" which is disappointing. There's an entire field of scholars who are not working at this from any religious intention (for at least a great part) who have found that the evidence is very much in support of the meanings of patterning and pictures in manuscripts. If you don't want to believe it (or check out the books I recommended) it's your loss. Seems like you're just arguing because you don't want to be wrong at this point rather than from any reasonable basis.
I'm done for the night, though. Have a nice one.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 8:48 PM
but now it's all "shove it" which is disappointing.
blah-blah *condescension* blah-blah *courtier's reply*
blah.
Posted by: Eidolon | September 13, 2009 9:42 PM
Ichthyic:
I would agree with you that the pattern is more in the mind of the beholder than in that of the artist. With enough mental gymnastics, you can wring almost anything you want out of any piece of art or literature. Remember all those tedious dissections of written works to find the "true and hidden" meanings in your lit classes? Same thing. For example, Moby Dick was mostly about the whaling life and little to do with Ahab's obsession, the battle of man against nature, yada, yada, yada. Melville wrote that story based on a real life sinking of a whaler by it's intended victim. As we have seen with xians, the mind can create almost anything based on virtually nothing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 9:50 PM
As we have seen with xians, the mind can create almost anything based on virtually nothing.
ayup.
Apologists have created entire careers out of it.
*shrug*
Posted by: Paul Murray | September 13, 2009 10:05 PM
@22 Evolution SWAT
If you enjoy the gospels so much, permit me to recommend "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark", by Denis R MacDonald, after reading which I have do doubt you will enjoy the gospels even more.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 13, 2009 10:33 PM
@SC, OM #115: Wake me up when the much touted alternative agricultural methods feed the world. I hear that nonsense all the time. The basic problem is that the human population is increasing faster than the food supply can expand; the global population went beyond what is sustainable decades ago. Intensive agriculture is horrible for the environment, but at the moment there is no alternative regardless of how much hippies may howl. If the so-called alternatives were any good, they would supplant the current intensive agricultural practices - but they don't because they are not economical. There is no global conspiracy to force this situation on people and the behavior and intent of organizations like the World Bank are being misrepresented by people who make such ridiculous accusations against them. Organizations such as the International Rice Research Institute have been around for decades and will continue to exist while they attempt to push nature to its limits and improve (in the case of IRRI, rice) harvests. Of course the woo peddlers are out there claiming to sell Nirvana and that there are better alternative practices which they can't make take hold because of a global conspiracy. The so-called "green revolution" isn't something which only third world nations depend on; the USA is absolutely dependent on it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 10:40 PM
Intensive agriculture is horrible for the environment, but at the moment there is no alternative regardless of how much hippies may howl.
I wonder if you'll be howling along with the "hippies" when you have to start paying more for water than gas?
the USA is absolutely dependent on it.
you're living in denial if you for one second think that the vast bulk of agriculture in the US is done for the benefit, foodwise, of the the people living in the US.
Otherwise we wouldn't have such huge subsidies to grow corn.
Your use of "hippies" as an attempt at denigration is rather amusing.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 10:53 PM
They are feeding people now. And the current system has not "fed the world" by any stretch of the imagination. Did you actually read anything I linked to? Do you have anything substantive to say at all?
Wrong.
Wrong.
What an ignoramus you are. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. There are plenty of books out there about how they operate - from Rich's Mortgaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment and the Crisis of Development back in 1994 to Stiglitz and on and on. There are powerful fucking corporate interests dedicated to maintaining and expanding the current system. Fool.
Again, did you read any of the links I provided? The reports?
If all you're going to do is repeat baseless and predictable assertions, you shouldn't bother.
This is my last response to you, you prating coxcomb. You're as much of a waste of time as Ranum.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 11:04 PM
Not directly related, but that part in FLOW about Nestle in Michigan was unbelievable. Just googled for updates and came across this:
http://sanfrancisco.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=190616&type_news=latest
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 11:23 PM
If the so-called alternatives were any good, they would supplant the current intensive agricultural practices
if alternative fuels were any good, they would have supplanted gasoline...
If there was a better plan for healthcare in the US, it would have already replaced the current HMO system...
that's the kind of thinking I typically see libertarians spouting.
@SC, from the article:
Sometimes, and it's good that it worked this time, but the problem is it's inevitably the case that if enough money is involved, waning interest in the issue will result in "Nestle" getting what they want eventually.
How many times did I see successful ten year long campaigns to preserve wetlands in CA, only to see in another ten years those same "protected" wetlands turned into condos as the leadership of the Coastal Commission changed, and public interest had waned a bit.
No chance to go back once the place is drained and filled and had condos and strip malls built on it.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 13, 2009 11:37 PM
Sheesh, Ichthyic! I know, but you couldn't let me be cheered for 10 minutes?
:D
:)
:/
:(
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 13, 2009 11:40 PM
I know, but you couldn't let me be cheered for 10 minutes?
sorry, I got so tired of seeing the same thing happen over and over again, I finally left to see if it's better somewhere else, somewhere with less people and less money...
meh.
it IS quite a bit better here, but far from perfect.
overall the right move for me, though.
Posted by: BrianX | September 13, 2009 11:48 PM
SC:
Here's where you come off as being anti-science: don't forget, nothing in science is ever finished. No, the methods of the Green Revolution were not perfect. But then neither is the work of organic agriculture. The simple fact is that the Green Revolution helped people to live, but now that we know some of its aftereffect it's up to some present or future Borlaug to pick up his work and combine it with what we know about sustainability.
Don't demonize someone because their good work had a dark side. Be a good scientific thinker and accept it as a step in the process, not an end in and of itself, and that there will always be improvements to be made and problems to solve. If you can't do that, turn in your Molly; you don't deserve it.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 14, 2009 12:04 AM
I'll say this one time: I've linked to two reports by scientists. I've yet to hear a single response to them. I've also linked to articles by people, including scientists, who have studied the actual ways these programs have played out in the world. Their failure was recognized long, long ago, and people like Borlaug continued to promote them. There were alternatives then (and long before), and there are now.
Can anyone fucking say something with any substance whatsoever, that responds to anything I've said or presented?
I have been talking about what Borlaug was doing right up until his death - the policies he advocated, the ogranizations and corporations he was involved with, his responses to criticisms. Borlaug did not die in 1970.
Fuck you, condescending asshole.
Another idiot. I'm done with you, too.
BTW,
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2083
Posted by: PMH | September 14, 2009 12:08 AM
I'm de-lurking comment on the ignorant bashing Victoria seems to have suffered. She wasn't defending the bible or religion, merely that the illustrations in the book of Kells contained symbolism. She also provided references to support this assertion, and frankly anyone who's taken art history 101 should know that assertion is correct.
She's not saying the information conveyed by the symbolism is true. For example, coral was used as a symbol for redemption, a meaning to the medieval viewer beyond "Hey, look at that piece of coral." The fact that religious redemption is a fairy tale doesn't negate that fact that the artist intended to convey meaning beyond "Hey, here's a nifty piece of coral." It's also not negated by modern audiences not understanding the meaning it was intended to convey to audiences centuries ago.
As an athiest and a scientist, it's disappointing to hear such willful ignorance about another field of study.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 14, 2009 12:18 AM
@SC, OM: Please link to articles written by relevant scientists. The articles you're linking to are, quite honestly, full of bullshit and diatribe. Loaded language is used to scare people, for example, the mention of "petrochemical fertilizers". One fertilizer which can be synthesized with the aid of petrochemicals is urea - and the synthetic urea is not as good as the small amount found in cow pee because ...?
It's really not difficult at all to find good articles on agriculture - go find some, and read them. You'll see they're nothing like the articles you like to link to. For one, I can't remember a single mention of "petrochemical fertilizers" in the hundreds of articles I've read over the past 30 years.
That site you love - "foodfirst.org" is full of some of the most ignorant bullshit I've ever seen.
Posted by: Brian X | September 14, 2009 12:30 AM
SC:
All I can say is this: You can't tell a man who Knows(tm).
Posted by: SC, OM | September 14, 2009 12:34 AM
More substanceless tripe from MadScientist.
I have. Please explain why the scientists who participated in writing the IAASTD report are not relevant. And the science underlying the UCS report. How about these people?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1
Lugar and Borlaug:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/05/a-new-green-revolution/
This is not supported, and is in fact opposed, by the science. It's a political project that has proven to be a failure and to have disastrous human and ecological costs.
yap yap yap
Posted by: Brian X | September 14, 2009 12:35 AM
(Or a woman. I should probably keep closer track of those things.)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 14, 2009 12:48 AM
It really doesn't matter. It was the one thing you could say, and it was pathetic ad hominem drivel.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 14, 2009 1:07 AM
To be clear: When I say this is unfounded, I'm talking about the specific (and GM-obsessed) vision for the application of science and technology (which, as mentioned with citation in one of the links I provided above, Borlaug himself acknowledges is not how they present it here). This is dangerously reductionist. Other approaches - like in the recommendations of the IAASTD report, or the basis for Shiva's work - look at the concrete effects of programs and policies on the ground: long-term yields, sustainability, biodiversity, water, soil, fossil-fuel use, suitability to local conditions, democracy and power, distribution, the economics of farming,...
Posted by: Brian X | September 14, 2009 1:08 AM
No. No it is not ad hominem, it's a correction to a statement which is something of a set phrase in my personal vocabulary.
Unless you were referring to my previous comment, which describes my perception of your thought processes -- you are seeing things in a strictly binary view and refusing to reconsider despite being called out by a number of other commenters. You want to not be referred to by terms like that? Then either take the binary thinking to HuffPo with all the woo-woos or lose it and try to see things like the Green Revolution in terms of *all* their effects, not just the undesirable ones.
The scientific approach here is to look at the failures of the Green Revolution as opportunities for improvement, not out-and-out indictments of the entire concept. You fail at science. Go correct your errors.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 14, 2009 1:32 AM
This has become ridiculous.
I've made specific arguments about Borlaug's recent actions (quoting his own words), linked to scientific reports, and discussed and linked to articles by people who have worked in this area for decades. There have been no substantive responses - just the boilerplate characterizations hurled at anyone who challenges corporate "science" policies. You lackeys can have the last word. I won't be returning to this thread.
Posted by: Mr. Deity | September 14, 2009 1:56 AM
Comment 13 kills me because I'm writing an episode of Mr. Deity right now about the Trinity -- which neither Mr. Deity nor Jesse/Jesus understand.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 14, 2009 1:59 AM
I have to agree with PMH, and have to say that I hate to see another thread in which the Humanities get poo-poo-ed. Ancient Irish art was highly complex; ancient Christian art was highly symbolic*; the merger of the two resulted in an art form that was both, to varying degrees (sometimes there's no deeper meaning or symbolism, and it's just beautiful and whimsical illustration; sometimes there is).
Granted, Victoria overreacted to PZ's irreverent treatment of the book, but that's no reason to delegate Art History into the making-shit-up category :-(
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 14, 2009 2:01 AM
oops, forgot the footnote:
*due to having to basically hide for the first couple centuries, either inside their own symbols, or the symbols of other, less persecuted religions.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 14, 2009 4:20 AM
I think SC's point (as I understand it*) kind of was this:
'Etruscan writing is made up of symbols. What those symbols means is any-one's guess.
You might call yourself an expert and write a nice 'scientificy' paper, with lots of nice neat little footnotes, describing these symbols being the remnants of the ancient writing of Atlantis, taught to the Atlanteans by giant chartreuse Sasquatches from the plant Fong. It doesn't make it so."
We can't know the Monks didn't decorate the Book of Kells with pretty pictures, 'cause they were pretty pictures.
The mind-reading, time-traveling machine is a figment of the birfers' fevered imaginations, sorry to disappoint. - DJ
______________________
*SC if I'm wrong, apologies to you. And in that case read this comment as being IMHO.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 5:03 AM
Victoria, not SC.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 5:26 AM
Brian X, here is where you come off as undoubtedly anti-science and unable to think for yourself.
It was known from day one, by Borlaug and everyone else, that his crops would need significantly more water than the crops they were replacing. This was not discovered later. This was not unpredictable. The problem of sustainability was built into the new system from the beginning and it came as a surprise to no one.
You are the one doing binary thinking. SC has not denied that Borlaug increased crop yields. What you have refused to address is that this may have resulted in more people starving, not less.
SC has presented multiple specific criticisms and was willing to talk about any of them. You refused to talk about anything specific or evidence-based -- refused to learn anything or teach anything -- and instead kept parroting mindless marketing talking points. You aren't interested in discussion. You are only interested in whining that someone has refused to give proper deference to Great Men.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 5:30 AM
That's not a scare word. The problem is that we know our petroleum-based economy is not sustainable, and is already beginning to become too expensive. So the fact that particular fertilizers are derived from petroleum is quite relevant.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 5:48 AM
From the article I linked earlier,
Some commenters can't or won't see that simple production is not the issue, distribution is. You can't just increase crop yields and expect that to feed people, when an economy is designed to maximize scarcity to keep prices high. If you don't understand why unemployment persists even when there is enough work for everyone, you won't understand this either.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 14, 2009 6:26 AM
Strange gods before me - I'm wrong; you're wrong. :)
I meant, of course, the point of those arguing against Victoria's position (#61 onward); but SC was not one of them, completely different conversation.
Yep, I'm an idiot. - DJ
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 6:36 AM
Ah. See, I've had a hard time following the Book of Kells conversation on both sides.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 14, 2009 8:19 AM
Funny, though. Borlaug is a hero to the global warming denialists at http://junkscience.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience
Posted by: Radge Havers | September 14, 2009 11:32 AM
I'm glad you're discussing this. It something worth exploring in depth for scientists who want to communicate to a lay audience.
You touch on an old debate in aesthetics about the role of form and content. Generally those are considered artificial distinctions and are in practice inseparable. In the case of the Book of Kells much of the artistic content may in fact not be about religion per se, so the gewgaw rap probably isn't entirely fair. The simplest way to approach that idea in a short comment section is to consider tone. Are the notes in a Bach cantata simply a bunch of ornaments or is there more going on there? The Kells gives up a lot of information about the world view and psychology of its makers (horror vacui, for instance). And the knot work makes great puzzles. Heck, even mathematicians make a past-time of finding symmetry groups at the Alhambra, whose makers explored the subject extensively in their own way.
A contemplative tone is good for contemplating stuff, be it religion, works of sci-fi (oh where would conventions be without Spock ears), or hard science. There's plenty for scientists to learn from religion about art.
Believe it or not!
;-)
Posted by: eddie | September 14, 2009 1:30 PM
It's the platitudes that bother me most. On both items discussed here.
On symbolism, the platitude is "it has meaning, even if the meaning is wrong, that meaning means something."
Bullshit victoria. Joseph Smith built a whole tranche of his scam on a made-up-as-all-shit mistranslation of hieroglyphics. Those symbols had meaning in a language that was later translated, with the help of the rosetta stone, by people who cared what meaning is. Mumbo Jumbo I say to yo. Be gone!
On the 'green revolution' the platitude is "millions were saved from starvation."
Bullshit baurlog apologists. The actual effect of the short-term increase in production is an increase in population and and increase in desertification. Now more people will starve who would otherwise have lived sustainable lives, (or in many cases would not have been born condemned to such suffering) within a sustainable population.
Posted by: Brian X | September 14, 2009 2:16 PM
My full opinion on the matter is as follows:
http://offseasontv.blogspot.com/2009/09/few-thoughts-on-norman-borlaug.html
I would put Borlaug in the same category as Linus Pauling (and to a lesser extent the hateful sonofabitch William Shockley) -- a great scientist whose work had much to recommend it, but who had a tendency to stray outside his core competencies into woo. And it is amazing to me, as a foodie, how otherwise rational people can get lost in this pastoral myth of environmentalism and organic agriculture.
No, the Green Revolution was not the solution to all problems. Yes, it has left problems behind. But it had successes as well as failures, and we need to learn from it.
Posted by: Brian X | September 14, 2009 2:21 PM
(Incidentally, I have no idea if that was really Jeff Gillman in the comments section, but it would be pretty awesome if it was. I wonder if PZ knows him.)
Posted by: Radge Havers | September 14, 2009 3:31 PM
oh holy moly.
Artists intentionally use symbolism with specific meanings, true enough. People read all kinds of crap into art, true enough. People also read interesting stuff into it that the artist never imagined, true enough. All because it's "Art" not "Science" and it doesn't stand alone but works in the service of other ideas, some of which are ambiguous by nature. Simply put it's not an extraneous doo-dad even if it's only a personal expression, not if it's done well.
Thing is, scientists use art all the time even though they sometimes deny that it has valuable connections to what they do. I'll never forget that I once used the noun "stuff" in a paper for a hydrology class and got slammed for being "Too slangy!" In other words I wasn't showing the proper respect to the subject matter or potential readers, and a drier, more professional tone was more appropriate.
It think it's fair to say that this blog is able to attract hoards of Pharyngulati because of PZ's kick-ass approach and clever skewerings. That's art. For a specific audience, but still art.
As for Feynman, he had some issues with the humanities because he ran into more bigotry there than in the sciences. I can't say I'm surprised by that. IMO, artists in particular tend to be a little unglued because their bread-and-butter day in and day out is illusion. When you look a picture of a sailboat, for instance, however compelling to the viewer, it's still just pigment on paper. Artists spend a lot of their time in involuted measuring of their own mental states which they periodically spring on others to gauge the response.
Even so, I think Feynman's quote is correct. To say that the art needs to be subservient to the science is not the same as relegating it to garnish. If you want, think of the scientists as generals and the artists as colonels. Or as conductors who lead musicians with expert knowledge of their instruments.