Soon is a relative term

(the following is out of context. In its current form it is only useful if you are put into a situation where you MUST force your ideas into pre-constructed boxes. Boxes that are not quite the right shape. However, some genuine thought did seem to come of this "writing." Soon I will rip apart the boxes and let my ideas come to fruition. Until then... this is all you get.)

Thus far, it seems we are "choosing" to define science as an amalgamation of three more basic modes of science; they are as follows: science as a way of knowing, science as a process, and science as a particular kind of work.

“Science as a way of knowing” means that science is suitable as a means of defining our universe. Fundamentally, this means that a least some part of the information discovered through science is potentially True knowledge. “True knowledge” can be described as any infallible fact. Roughly, this can be stated as, “the world is understandable [though science].”

The consequences of science being a way of knowing are not intrinsic or vital to the nature of science they are just consequences. However, it might be helpful to examine a few. Say a scientist is anyone who implements science. As our definition stands now, all anyone has to do to implement science is “something” that stumbles across potentially True knowledge. Assuming that most science is knowingly pursued, that definition can be revised too; a scientist is anyone that knowingly pursues potentially True knowledge. It seems reasonable that the pursuit of potentially True knowledge is going to lead to a lot of general knowledge, and it seems reasonable that general knowledge has some value in the pursuit of True knowledge. Since the only requirement of True knowledge is infallibility, it seems logical to judge the value of general knowledge by how close it comes to infallibility. From this stems the trend that scientific knowledge is often replaced by seemingly more infallible knowledge.

“Science as a process” refers to the means of pursuit in the “pursuit of potentially True knowledge.” It is important to notice that, in science, to fulfill the requirement of “pursuing” requires any matter of physical investigation. Physical investigation must entail the use of physical properties in some form.

There are many standards to how scientists pursue knowledge and general patterns of inquiry, but they are not necessary in defining science. Largely they relate more to differentiating competent scientists from poor ones.

“Science as a particular kind of work” this largely deals with how a professional research scientist deals with society, and vice versa. It is important to understand if one hopes to be a practicing professional scientist one day, but it doesn’t seem help define fundamentally what the nature of science is. More, it seems like it describes the effect of taking science and unleashing it on the world, and vice versa. Much science takes place completely removed from “the scientific enterprise.” I’m therefore not going to divulge on it now.

-k-

Thought

I am, therefore, I am. And, I will be...

-k-

I haven't posted in a while

...but I wrote an essay length comment on someone's blog. Here it is:
(I will post something new soon)

2. Is there a difference between art that is "good" and art that is "bad"?

Everything, somewhere within it, is art. Artists are those people who have taken to task showing that art to the world. Pick a medium, express something, and you are an artist.

I have a desk. This desk is oak, simple, solid, and plain. It has existed for around fifty years; it started as my grandfathers work desk, and then became my uncles, before becoming mine. It is art. The hours the carpenter put into cutting the oak to fit together to make the desk, and the generations of homework completed, and papers written, and drawings drawn on the desk, and countess numbers of various items stored inside the desk, are all components of its art. I could express this art in some medium if I wanted to. Acting as and artist, I could say make a painting of the desk that embodies its “_____”ness. I could show that painting to the world and maybe they too would see this “_____”ness in my desk. Then it would stand not as a lifeless object, but as a work of art.

But, I choose not to paint my desk. I would rather see it as my old sturdy desk. The person who built my desk defied the universe in putting it together. They took a formless pile of dead wood and constructed a desk. Simple, strong, and static it has refused the relentless force constantly pushing it rip apart, and return it to an anarchic pile of ash. In its fight, my desk has cataloged its history in every nick and scratch. They tell the scar stories of its life. I hope that whoever built my desk did realize that they were an artist, and fully intended for these ideas to be the voice of there artwork. They chose carpentry as there medium, and built a solid oak desk.

So, you sing, and I write. We have chosen our mediums. We take what we see and what’s inside us and we try to give it to the world. They judge it, and since it is ours, they judge us. The judging has two criteria that count: what are we expressing, and how well did we do. Bad artwork expresses nothing, better artwork expresses something poorly, great art work expresses something unmistakably. You could be Pollock and simply express your minds interaction with a canvas. If you do it well enough people will be taken aback. People will cry, people will realize something profound, or meaningful, or see in a new perspective. People will notice. We are all essentially the same, if you are expressing part of yourself effectively, there are people who will identify with it and take notice. If you aren’t finding those people find a bigger audience. If they still don’t notice, you are either not expressing what you really want, or you are expressing it poorly.

Examine what you are expressing and make sure that it is something that you want to express. If it is, it is worth expressing. However, you may be expressing it in the wrong medium. Making a play about the beauty of cheese might be such a good idea, maybe you should write about it instead. But, then again it may be perfect. If it is perfect you may just not be very good a writing plays. Get better at writing plays, find a medium that is equality perfect, or learn to live with imperfect expression. If you know are a good playwright, and you are expressing yourself truly, then I say fuck ‘em and keep on with your play. Eventually people will notice. Just hope it’s before your dead. Either way it is the world’s loss for not getting to hear it. So, to answer the question; no, there is no such thing as good art or bad art, only good and bad artists.

-k-

Insomnianniamu

Sleep is over rated. Sleep is for the weak. Your only sleeping because your depressed. Get your lazy ass out of bed.

My unyielding desire to not waste my life on useless sleep is probably going to kill me.

-k-

Kill Your TV

No, seriously, Kill. Your. Tv. Your brain will forever thank you.

-k-

Intro / Great Escape

This is my blog. It should, if I can be diligent, contain no real information about me. This is an experiment. I will post one entry everyday. In these entries I won't talk about troubles with my (removed my author), or how I'm doing in (removed by author). I hope only to express my privately cultivated thoughts, to you, the beleaguered masses of cyberspace.
enjoy

I am strongly considering spending some time far away from here. If I can keep myself in-line for a little longer, and don't get on a plane tomorrow, I think summer will do fine. The great plan is to devote myself to a new skill, something purely expressive and creative, then fly to a place where I don't speak the language and peddle my passion to awe-struck locals and tourists. In only the most bohemian of style I will arrive in said place with a few clothes, 20 bucks, and the tools of my trade. I will live off my charm and wits. This will happen.

-k-

I Welcome Myself

This is a secret. Don't tell anyone.