Do scientists or artists have a more open mind?

Question

Do scientists or artists have a more open mind?
I recently posted a question about whether people believe I live with invisible alien beings from another dimension (which I do). I asked the question in the Astronomy section and one in Arts and humanities. Is it left brain vs right brain? I got different results. The question was worded slightly different. Still, the scientists were much more skeptical I think. Chemistry, for instance, is a perfect science that can not go outside the boundaries. I would think astronomers would be more open minded although they tend to deal more with math. Artists, writers are more open to imagination and so the idea that it could exist may be more readily accepted. Scientists, for example, can not accept that the amount of time it would take at light speed to reach Earth. In another dimension, it would be possible. Who would be more willing to accept this theory? What are your thoughts

Answer 1

The really good scientists who have provided the most advancement had and have very open minds. Einstein always placed abstract thought first and what he called scientific labor, the math and experiments, second.

People vary in both disciplines but, from past experience, I would tend to agree that artists are generally more open minded.

I have had discussions with artistic people who can't see the similarities between geographies and architecture in Europe and the U.S. and steadfastly maintain that it is a totally different world to the point of becoming angry.

I have more often had discussions with scientists who can't see the black holes in their theories to the point of calling anyone who hasn't studied itty-bitty things stupid.

The amount of scientific knowledge that was established in a very short time between Newton and Einstein is imposing. To try to learn it all, let alone use it to develop more theories, is quite a task. Education, in this way, can become a type of trap for the brilliant and they spend all of their time learning what some one else said or did before instead of considering new ideas.

Science used to be thought of as the study of abstract thought but, you could be put to death for suggesting that the world might be round or the earth might rotate around the sun. But, some one would imagine that perhaps the world is round anyway and then they and their other open minded peers would use math and experiments to prove or disprove the idea. Now, even though a lot of their theories are based on abstract thought like time equaling light and time being warped by gravity and time being matter, they don't put you to death if you question the Big Bang and offer an alternative, they just call you stupid and refuse to discuss it. So, more open minded scientists study alternatives on their own time.

It seems that science is more inclined to become a fascist state than Art. One guy has an idea and tells some friends who tell other friends who tell other friends and the idea becomes fact and only Science is allowed to question it. If you ask an artist to consider the infinite nature of the vacuum, they are more inclined to try to imagine it.

Answer 2

That was a very interesting experiment you pulled off.

I think you already have the answer.

And for my two cents worth:

Artists tend to be more creative in their thinking - they aren't constrained by formulas and statistics and physical laws. They are free to imagine and create.

Scientists, on the other hand, must deal with empirical facts and stay within the boundaries that define their perceived reality.

In closing, an artist wouldn't hesitate to try and create a perpetual motion device - and might even succeed. Scientists wouldn't waste their time even trying because it violates thermal dynamic laws. I personally think just a little bit of the artist's free thinking probably makes for a much better scientist.

Answer 3

The way I see it, this question is impossible to answer unless you are more specific on what you mean by an "open mind."

There is nothing in the scientific method that prevents a practitioner from suspending judgement about even way-out, "supernatural" phenomena until more data comes in.

Want an example? Richard Feynmann, the Nobel winning physicist. He was *always* trying new things out - he once told a great story of the time he was hypnotized, for example. I admire that attitude he had of not being satisfied with his knowledge until he'd seen the phenomenon at work for himself.

He was an accomplished artist and musician, too. And one of the 20th Century's foremost physicists.

Now, you could mean, by "an open mind," the propensity for a person to not require hard evidence for what they hold to be true. This I would argue is not evidence of an open mind, but of intellectual laziness.

It's dangerous to draw conclusions about an individual's quality of thinking just from what their job is "supposed" to require of their thinking. I've known writers and painters who reasoned superlatively.

And I can remember at least one discussion with a supposed "rocket scientist" who, rather unscientifically, changed the standards of evidence and his unspoken premises at whim, so he could take his technical knowledge and us it to pillory any position he didn't agree with. Sigh.

Answer 4

M.C. Escher created fantastical drawings, but science would never try to recreate them in 3D.

As for your invisible alien, a spaced out artist may say "Yeah, like, wow, man, that's incredible", and probably see it.

A scientist would say "Prove it, I don't care if it exists or not. If I can't prove it, then it is of no interest to me."

A different way of thinking. Have a read up on Abbott Thayer, an artist who did some very scientifically important work on camouflage. Unfortunately for him, he started coming up with some untestable hypotheses, and ended up a laughing stock.

Answer 5

Mostly artsits would be more open minded. Scientists more sceptical. Good scientists are open minded AND sceptical.

An artist might ask what type of alien beings you mean.

A scientist might ask for evidence.

Answer 6

It's about the same for both. There are some who are intrenched in their own ideas of how things are or should be and they won't budge from that position no matter what the evidence shows.

Answer 7

i would think the scientist would be more open minded. some believe that if you can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, than it isn't real. perhaps their perception just stinks

Answer 8

http://www.petitiononline.com/PP896/petition.html
save pluto by signing this petition