Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Karl Straub's avatar

As a musician trained in the mathematical analysis of music, but terrible at science, I’m not sure my insight will help.

But in my field, groundbreakers are sometimes theorists, and sometimes not. A lot of theorists wait for creative people to do the heavy lifting, and then they come along and explain what the innovator did. And with many innovators, the academics have been glacially slow to catch up. It’s typical for them to just dismiss or ignore innovations.

Book-length scholarly writing is in its infancy with artists like Cecil Taylor, Anthony Braxton, and Roscoe Mitchell, even though the last two are old, and the first is dead. And John Cage is widely derided as a joke, and his ideas mocked, even though he eloquently explained virtually everything he ever did. And i never even heard these names mentioned at all when I was getting a music degree in 2002.

So, I would guess that the world of physical innovation, or real-world problem-solving, wouldn’t be altogether different from what i’m describing. I assume it IS quite different, generally, but I also assume that while the ratio might be different, it would be likely in other fields that innovation and theory aren’t always coming from the same person, or in the same order. I also assume that some innovation, AND some theory, show up on the heels of both accidents and whims. And even following huge errors, too, I imagine.

If a scientist or engineer were to tell me my assumption is wrong, I would probably buy it. Mainly because I don’t have the energy to argue with a scientist. (I’d prefer to not even chat with an engineer.)

Until someone disabuses me of my wrongheaded notion, I’ll continue to suspect I’m correct.

Expand full comment
Frederick Woodruff's avatar

Mysticism and mystics proceed/proceeded science.

People are mystified and then develop observational skills to catalog how things behave (science).

Inevitably as science has shown repeatedly throughout its history existing explanations fail and then we’re mystified again and start a new part of the scientific process over, to replace or expand beyond the failed ‘fact.’

Art rarely suffers from this phenomenon because artists are natural born mystics. And remain free of the annoying, know-it-all hubris that science often foments.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts