Clouds, stars and dreams

Modern art - do you like modern art?

How do you define modern art?

I'm not sure I feel like discussing this now.

Here is a link which I think provides a very good example of the modern art I like:

http://berndnaut.nl/works.htm

Enjoy! [Lucia, thanks for the link! ;) ]

Poetry - is it possible to understand poetry?

I often see it as cryptic and distant - yet sometimes a poem catches my attention, and it may happen that a line or two keep coming back to my memory.


Bright Star (J. Keats)

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art —
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors —
No — yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft swell and fall,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever — or else swoon to death

Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven (W. B. Yeats)

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym1M9vBVIYw (Yeats' Grave - The Cranberries) [I think there are a few mistakes and misspellings, but overall it's a nice video.]

ScienceCom #1 - What is out there

A while ago I was reading an Italian newspaper, "Repubblica" - I was browsing various articles when a title in small prints caught my eye: the article mentioned the foundation of a new research centre to study the risk that humans destroy themselves by giving birth to a machine that eventually turns itself against its creator. Without further ado, here is the relevant link: http://www.cser.org/.

Pause.

This reminded me that a few months earlier I had bumped into an equally odd website: http://beyond.asu.edu/.

Another pause.

Continuing my journey through the resources of the internet, here is the most recent discovery (thank you, Rob!): http://storify.com/ingorohlfing/overly-honest-methods-in-science.

... Now what?

Let's start thinking about what such websites have in common - a certain vision of scientific research, perhaps.
My reaction when I read about the first project listed above may be described as a rapid sequence of thoughts along these lines:

- who are these people, and is there so much money out there that one can possibly spend on such nonsense? Clearly this is easily classified as a non-directional, superficial rant.

- no, but... Seriously? I can think of at least three alternative possible causes for the destruction of our race - and none of them includes a form of Artificial Intelligence (AI) turning into our terminator. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, though.

- why would someone come up with such an idea? Sometimes one hears people commenting on a silly proposal: "they had no more original thoughts to work on, hence their uninteresting latest idea". In this case it's the other way round, so to say. It seems like, oppressed by centuries and centuries of scientific debate and discoveries, and in a century - the current one - where the "Publish or Perish" principle has become deeply rooted into many researchers' brains... The focus on the identification of the most significant and meaningful priorities may be lost. Minds might start to wander freely, they may stumble on an idea or a hypothesis - and if they are not prompt enough in recognising it as a divertissement (an entertaining diversion), this may grow in size and eventually become a real entity like a centre or an institute.

The second link I copied above generated analogous considerations, except that here the centre is not "newly born"... It's up, running and, to be frank, I'm still debating within myself as to whether I find the whole structure trustworthy or not. Browsing the website there seems to be an equal amount of odd contents and stimulating talks and seminars.

The third website is probably the most interesting one; the first obvious reaction is laugh, of course - partly because many of the entries are just great, and partly because (especially if the reader is a scientist, or maybe-to-be-scientist too :) ) it is rather easy to spot a few comments that sound familiar and well-known. The second reaction comes as a question: why would anyone ridicule research? Perhaps the verb I chose is too strong, but I do feel like all the contributions to this web page subtract to science and scientific progress a share of its authority and reliability, not to mention its - supposed?! - rigour. Now, I know that such doubts arise every time one hears in the news that this or that paper (often published in a good journal) turned out to be an inventive creation of its authors, so to speak. The more I think about it, the more I feel like the point that strikes me here is the participation of young researchers and students. These "confessions of questionable scientific practice" belong to people who have just started to approach reseach or are still relatively new to the field - yet they all seem to have encountered a few examples of "bad science". And, more importantly, they are willing to share these experiences, wink and have a laugh about them.

I don't mean to sound intransigent or support censorship. This post is a mere collection of thoughts on the subject of what is out there, in terms of the scientific community and its views on itself and the world around it. Thank you for reading!