LASER June 10 2009

• Art, Science and the Limits of Curiosity

• Roger Malinao Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille Provenceo Leonardo/ISAST/OLATSo IMERA: Institut Mediterraneen de Recherche Avancee

• Motivators : o Curiosityo Doubto Meaningo Engineering…

• Curiosity:o Necessity: All knowledge is

conditioned by the structure of the knower (Varela)

o Ethics: “the nature of the task of

the “ought’ is the other-directedness of the “is”

• Sundar Sarukkai: Science and the Ethics of Curiosity. 2009

Outline

• My own experience in scientific collaboration• Types of Art- Science Collaboration• Ethics of Curiosity• Limits to Curiosity• Towards Ethics of Art-Science Collaboration

What is the universe made of ?

• Analysis of images like this tell us that 95% of the content of this image is “dark”

• Does not emit light of any kind.

• 30% ‘dark matter” that holds galaxies together

• 60% ‘dark energy” that is a pressure driving the expansion of the universe

Curiosity:D’ou venons nous ?Que Sommes Nous ?Ou Allons Nous ?

Three linked approaches within the scientific method that stop curiosity

• Exlanation through New Physical « Laws »:o Compact Descriptions of the Worldo Experiments on the worldo Modified Gravity, Quintessence

• Simulations: o Virtual Worlds that mimic our Worldo Retrodiction vs Prediction

• Pattern Recognition:o « Petabyte » era, Massive Cataloguing, Virtual Observatorieso Doing experiments on data about the worldo Extrapolation vs Explanation…The End of Theory…

A satellite to study dark energy and dark matter

• Massive collection of data• A international scientific

collaboration• Total End to End cost: 1 billion

dollars• Womb to Tomb schedule:

1998- 2018 ? 25 years…• Ten different research labs and

universities• 80 person core collaboration

already..hundreds

Some Challenges of a large scientific collaborations

• Defining Success: o Scientific vs Institutionalo Individual vs Collective

• Reconciling differing cultures:o Physicists and Astronomers: Experiments vs Observationso Engineers and Scientists:

Fixed vs Evolving requirements, Convergent vs Divergent Different Funding Agencies: decision methods, employment status

o Ground Based vs Space Based: Risk aversion• Partial Buy In:

o Many collaborators will participate in only part of the project• Trust:

o Confidentiality during competive phaseso Interlocking projects, Intellectual Property, Recognition

mechanisms,

Some Modes of Art-Science and Art-Technology Collaboration

• Creative Friction: flow of ideas, metaphors

• Collaborative teams: Shared resources for common outcomeo eg E.A.T, cf Special Effects/Animation/Games

• Consortia:o Shared resources for multiple outcomeso eg EMobilart as a consortium of collaborative teams

• Collectives:o Shared access to resources

eg L Smarr, UCSD Supercomputing Center• New Leonardos/ Renaissance Teams:

o Explicit Art, Science, Innovation outcomes

When does one stop looking ?

• What is the limit of curiosity ?o Scientist: When one has a tested explanation that makes senseo Artist: When one has generated an experience that creates

meaning/changes perception/realised self expression• What kinds of explanations/meanings make sense ?

o Scientist: When we are dealing with epistemologies/ontologies that are commensurate with ourcurrent science

o Artist: When it is relevant to the human condition and experience. Individual and shared

• Is there an ethics of curiosity ?o See Science and the Ethics of Curiosity, Sundar Sarukkai, 2009o Most Scientists would say: Noo Most Artists would say: Yes

Scientific Curiosity

• Scientific curiosity is ‘pure’, driven by a child like desire to understand ourselves and the world around uso Pure Science vs Applied Scienceo Note: Fine Art vs Applied Art

• Curiosity does not accept authority, but relies on confrontation of hypotheses/meanings with experiments/experience.o No function of ‘science critic’ cf ‘art critic”

Ethos of Scientific Curiositycf Bunge 2006, Morton

• Intellectual Honesty• Integrity• Epistemic Communism• Organized skepticism• Dis-interestedness• Impersonality• Universality

Towards an Ethics of Curiositycf Sundar Sarukkai: Science and the Ethics of Curiosity 2009

• Curiosity is embodied• Curiosity is enacted• Curiosity is cultural• Curiosity is social• Curiosity is collective

• The claimed distinction between “pure” and “applied” science is not sustainable

• In some cultures, eg India, doubt rather than curiosity is a dominant driver inquiry ( cf Descartes)

• “Beware of binary oppositions” !

Curiosity is embodied:Varela: All knowledge is conditioned by the structure of the knower

Stelarc Char Davies

Curiosity is enactiveeg Marcel.li Antunez RocaRichard Feynman: What I cannot create, I cannot understand

Curiosity is SocialMarco Peljham and Makrolab

Curiosity is CulturalSaint Augustine: It was curiosity led me along the false trails before submitting tochristian baptismsFrancis Bacon: It is Charity that must motivate the knower, not curiosity

Donna Cox                                                     Ruth WestWeather Data Bases                                                 Protein Sequence Data

Curiosity is collective:Alan Lightman: Individual scientists are not emotionally detached from their work, it is through their collective activity that objectivity emergesFrank Malina/WAC corporal team: first man man object in space 1947

Limits to Curiosity

• 3 contingencies that drive what we will know in 50 years:

• What we WANT to know• What we CAN know• WHO we think we will become

What we CAN know

• Technological• Conceptual

EpistomologyLanguageIntuition• Methodological

Evolution of the scientific method

What we WANT to know

Myopias:

• Social• Cultural• Political

Who we think we will become

• Contingencies from who we are

• Time ScaleLong, Short• Physical Size

Large, Small• Nature of our beings

Carbon based life6 billion networked individuals

Living in New Scales cf Cheese Diagram Guardans, Czegledy

SLOW........................................................................................................

• FAST• SMALL                       OUR SIZE                           LARGE

New Senses:Gravitational Wave Observatories

LIGO in USA VIRGO in Italy

New senses: The Antares Neutrino Observatory under the Mediterranean

Limits of Curiosity in Collaboration

• Ethics: • Values:

o Fear of Misuseo Intellectual Propertyo Social Modelo Trust

Who is funding• Cost :( Time, Resources)• Strategic Alliance Expertise

o Trainingo Experience

Modern Science doesn’t make common sense

• New scientific knowledge comes through the use of instruments that have contact with a world that is not our worldo Our languages, metaphors, descriptions are

disconnected from these worldso We are trained on the wrong data set for survival

• Einstein:” The universe of ideas is just as independent of the nature of our experience as clothes are of the form of the human body”

• Science has become a cargo cult

The Scientific Method as a Terrain for Art-Science Collaboration

• Forming intuition on mediated sensory data

• Designing/Interacting with simulated systems

• Making sense/meaning of dense data, petabyte era

• Making Science Intimate• Peoples Science• Micro Science

• New Ontologies, New Intuitions,New Sensuality

Mediated Sensuality1904 2004 Cezanne: Mont St Victoire.........Sabine Raaf: Translator II

• “Moist” Curiosity: o Making explicit the ethical

conditions and the limits to our curiosity

• Curiosity:o Necessity: All knowledge is

conditioned by the structure of the knower (Varela)

o Ethics: “the nature of the task of

the “ought’ is the other-directedness of the “is”

• Sundar Sarukkai: Science and the Ethics of Curiosity