2015-07-06
|
“Neuro-aesthetics” anyone?
|
Bryan MaloneyIndiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
|
So, then, if there is no useful consensus at all that can be put to work for other fields, then art is just a shell game and a con job. In that case, it's pretty much disposable and ought to be ignored or consigned to the categories of "hoax", "prank", and "fraud".
So, which is it? Is art just a hoax and a fraud, is philosophy of art just a hoax and a fraud, or does philosophy of art ever actually generate anything at all that could be in the least bit worthwhile for society?
If the latter, then THAT (or the underlying definitions used thereby) is what can be used to determine "art" for neuroscience purposes. If no such thing exists at all, then philosophy of art ought to be reclassified as a form of fraud.
There is no need for a "universal consensus" to do useful science. There is only a need for a "general consensus", which means that there can even be large controversies. Scientists are not so limited and tiny-minded as to require everything be pinned down before moving forward. If you want certainty and "truth", flee from the sciences and hide under your bed. We don't do certainty and our "truth" is always provisional.
Looking to science for truth is like becoming an archbishop to pick up teenage girls.
|