[Artemisia] arts and/or sciences

[Dan Lind]

Esther asked a couple of things about art and science.  Among them she asked
what a science is and how the definition of science has changed over time.
There have been some wonderful answers already, but I think some points have
been overlooked, so I'll give it a go.  Be warned that I'm pretty particular
about this subject, so my answer could get very Very boring.  Also bear in
mind that I will be talking about MODERN Hard Sciences.  I'm not even
talking about modern social sciences.  Almost nothing that we call science
in the SCA fits this definition.  Please do not be offended.  Hmn, I should
come up with a prize for anyone who makes it all the way through this
without falling asleep or wanting to yell at me.

Okay first to, "what is a science?"  To be extremely nitpicky I'll point out
that there is a big difference between the question, "what is A science?"
and the question, "what is science?"  A science is a subsection of all
scientific study.  Each of these sciences is dedicated to studying a
particular subject, such as chemistry or physics.  Each science is called
the science of that subject, such as "the science of chemistry" or "chemical
science".  They are called that because each of these subjects is studied
using the scientific method.  This is where the English language starts
getting in the way.  Most people use the word "science" when they mean the
scientific method.

So to answer the question, "what is science?" I'll define the scientific
method.  It is the method in which the researcher or scientist makes a
hypothesis and tests it by experimentation and observes the results.  It's
basically look, then guess, then test.  This sounds quite simple.  It
isn't.  Creating a good experiment is based on tweaking only one thing in
the experiment so you can observe the change by comparing the changed
samples with an unchanged sample.  And that is just the straightforward part
of it.  The tricky bit is that it is very difficult to prove anything
absolutely.  Therefore, instead of trying to prove your own hypothesis, you
try to disprove the opposite of your hypothesis.  Let' say I hypothesized
that all carrots were orange.  In order to prove that were true, I'd have to
observe all carrots in existence before anyone ate a carrot or any new
carrots grew.  That is logistically impossible.  So instead I try to find
one carrot that is not orange.  It's much easier and cheaper that way.
Okay, is everyone bored yet?

Now to the historical question.  The form of the scientific method we use
now is the hypothetico-deductive method, which came into widespread use
during the twentieth century.  While the form of the scientific method we
use was implemented well out of period, the methods on which it was based
were being used very well in period.  Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) was one of
the great pioneers of the scientific method.  He lived during the
tenth/eleventh centuries.  I don't know about you, but that is perfectly
contemporary to my persona.  He is considered the father of optics and
experimentalism and the founder of several different sciences.  Newton's
first and second laws include concepts which Alhacen had described six
centuries earlier.  Here is a link to some of his accomplishments:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham  If you read through
this particular article about Alhacen, you will find a method which is
virtually indistinguishable from the modern scientific method.  I point this
out to illustrate the differences that occur between cultures and the
regression that can occur over time.  Several cultures in the far past had
quite advanced methods for understanding the world around them.  These
include Arabs, Chinese, Mayan, and many other ancient groups.  Over time
much of these methods have been lost.  As I understand it, much of our
current methods are derived from ancient Arabic methods.  Perhaps the only
reason we attribute the modern scientific method to the twentieth century is
that was when the worldwide scientific community adopted it for standard
use.

Then again, before the twentieth century, the scientific community was not a
worldwide group.  In period there were scientifically minded individuals who
conversed with each other, but this was an exception to the rule.  It has
been very difficult getting the governments of many countries to let their
scientists contribute to the global community.  They feel it is a matter of
national security.  Then again, I work for the US government studying forage
and range plants.  The FBI will not bust down my door if let things slip
about how to make grass grow.  But even our current troubles in sharing
knowledge pale in comparison to how repressed scientific communication was
in period.  Now I'm sure I'll get lots of responses about how open and
sharing people were during the enlightened time of their period, but the
plain and simple truth is that we call them the dark ages for a reason.
Many of the countries, which have shaped our modern view of the period, were
going through a big defensively repressive angsty thing at the time.  Don't
get me wrong.  I love this game we play.  But modern science is not the
reason I do it.  People, art, the struggle to make ones way in the world,
the ideas they had; these are the things I love about the middle ages.

So my suggestion is that if you want to portray medieval science, be sneaky
about it.  Hide the silk worms.  Don't tell anybody how to make Greek fire.
My persona is a Christian Viking working for the Byzantine emperor.  If he
had time for scientific thought, he was probably doing everything he could
to figure out the military sciences of his enemies.  Do you think anybody
wanted to share them with him?  I sure don't.  But since we are just playing
a game here, we could have a lot of fun doing Arts & Sciences with a Cloak &
Dagger flair.

But I'm sure that this post has gone on way to long, so I will make an end.

YISTTD,


Christian
-- 
Einarr the Christian Son of Håkon, GPA
Côte du Ciel
Artemisia
(MKA Dan Lind)