The Science of Aesthetics

[Ellainix]

OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

Look at these flowers:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320 ... lowers.jpg

Which flower is the most beautiful?

Which flower is the least beautiful?

Can you order the flowers in order of least beautiful to most beautiful?

If you ask 1 million girls who like flowers to order them from least to most beauty, will they produce consistent and accurate results?

Can you measure the beauty of these flowers?

If a boy wanted to know what flower to give to a girl to win her heart, would telling him to get any flower over 100 "Butes" make sense?

No, you could never do that.

Logikos, that is how we know beauty does not exist outside of one's mind. No one can agree on what is beautiful, most beautiful, least beautiful, not beautiful, etc. You can look at this world and see beauty, but that in no way makes this world beautiful.

[Logikos]

How do you determine that someone has a poorly functioning sense of beauty? We can determine that some one has good or bad hearing when they can't hear in a certain range of decibels and frequencies. We can tell people have good or bad vision by testing it. We don't ask do you like the bottom row of 'E's? We see if they can tell which way the 'E's are facing. There are standards. What is are the standards for beauty?

I think we need to answer the questions below before we can try and do that (if it is possible...who knows?).

Also, I really want these questions answered: What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes?

I think to start with we can say that beauty isn't restricted to visual beauty.  We have beautiful sounds, beautiful tastes and smells.  We have beautiful ideas, words, poems, stories.  What is it that unites these different things in their beauty?  I think it is certainly more than "these things make us feel nice inside" - there is something more to it than that.  But bugger me if I can nail it down to a definition.  I think it is very much like our intuitive understanding of goodness, which is equally impossible to define.  So I will have to go away and think about it quite hard and probably not come back with a very good answer.  Others probably have a better idea about what beauty is (even as a subjective value) than me...thoughts?

[pinkocommie]

I was recently drawn into a debate with a close Christian friend about the argument from beauty. I have no idea how to answer her questions.

Her position: Why are things in nature beautiful? Why do we find them attractive/why are they attractive, as though they were designed for our enjoyment? Is there a scientific reason for flowers and animals etc to be pretty?

Any advice or suggestions on how to respond will be awesomely appreciated ^_^ I get the feeling this can spill over into a philosophical debate quite easily but I'm looking specifically for any scientific evidence to back up my response.

I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

[Logikos]

Look at these flowers:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320 ... lowers.jpg

Which flower is the most beautiful?

Which flower is the least beautiful?

Can you order the flowers in order of least beautiful to most beautiful?

If you ask 1 million girls who like flowers to order them from least to most beauty, will they produce consistent and accurate results?

Can you measure the beauty of these flowers?

If a boy wanted to know what flower to give to a girl to win her heart, would telling him to get any flower over 100 "Butes" make sense?

No, you could never do that.

Logikos, that is how we know beauty does not exist outside of one's mind. No one can agree on what is beautiful, most beautiful, least beautiful, not beautiful, etc. You can look at this world and see beauty, but that in no way makes this world beautiful.

I think that a standard of objective beauty is going to have to be discrete - so objects are either beautiful or not beautiful, with no sliding scale.  I also think that beauty and "visual preference" are different things - with the latter being subjective by nature of it being a preference.  I think by any reasonable definition of beauty all those flowers would be beautiful - but the one the girl would personally prefer to look at is something the boy will have to work out himself.  

[Logikos]

I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

Probably a good idea... apologies kelltrill.

[pinkocommie]

I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

Probably a good idea... apologies kelltrill.

If you want to keep going with this, I'd just start a new thread in philosophy.  People seem interested in the conversation.

[kelltrill]

I really don't mind either way guys, but thanks for having my back, pinkocommie ^_^
If the nature of the answer to this question inevitably veers more towards the philosophical side then so be it, I'm just going to take a while to play catch up, that's all. Although if that's the case then perhaps it does deserve to be moved to the Philosophy section.

http://bit.ly/JkaR5; http://bit.ly/dnyCPX; http://bit.ly/dagBdb  Here are some interesting links I've been poring over today which relate to this discussion. I'm not overly opinionated on any of them, they're simply informative and interesting.

Oh, and if anyone was waiting with baited breath for my friend who initially posed this question to get back to me with a more succinct and methodical response, I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to broach the issue with her again. As soon as I know more though I'll be sure to update you.

[Tank]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  ]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

[kelltrill]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  ]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

If you are referring to my comment then perhaps I should clarify it a bit further, although I do not think it needs justification. When I said I had no strong opinion regarding the links I posted I was referring specifically to those links, and not to the argument as a whole, which I am obviously interested in since I started this debate in the first place.  
I have particularly enjoyed watching the debate develop between you and logikos, who appears to be your main sparring partner so far.

If you are referring to the last statement by logikos, I think it is more than appropriate for this debate. The key to a good debator is to explore all fields of the issue and probe possible weak spots. Sometimes it's necessary, whether you approve of arguing that way or not, simply to clarify and strengthen the debate. That's why logikos has been playing Devil's advocate. You are not wasting your time debating with anyone here, and I think everyone who has posted in this thread so far would agree.

[Tank]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  ]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

If you are referring to my comment then perhaps I should clarify it a bit further, although I do not think it needs justification. When I said I had no strong opinion regarding the links I posted I was referring specifically to those links, and not to the argument as a whole, which I am obviously interested in since I started this debate in the first place.  
I have particularly enjoyed watching the debate develop between you and logikos, who appears to be your main sparring partner so far.

If you are referring to the last statement by logikos, I think it is more than appropriate for this debate. The key to a good debator is to explore all fields of the issue and probe possible weak spots. Sometimes it's necessary, whether you approve of arguing that way or not, simply to clarify and strengthen the debate. That's why logikos has been playing Devil's advocate. You are not wasting your time debating with anyone here, and I think everyone who has posted in this thread so far would agree.

Beg pardon for my lack of clarity. I was specifically referring to Logikos comment about playing devils advocate and specifically about making the announcement later rather than earlier. If somebody is going to play devils advocate I would prefer that they say so before doing it. Just a personal peccadillo.

[Tanker]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  ]

Wouldn't the need for a "deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful" be because beauty is subjective? If it wasn't we would all automaticly agree when something was pleasing to expierence.

Examples of the beauty of nature being subjective could be

To one man a random rock could be a dusty boring unremarkable stone but to a geologist it could be one of the most beautifull rocks he had ever seen with unusual stria and unique conduals and georgous crystalisation.

To many people flys are ugly, dirty, and disgusting. To an entomoligist it could be a rare beauty with jewel like carapace, gracefull flight and intriging mating rituals.

What about the beauty of a sun rise? A pilot could find beauty in a clear sky meaning wonderfull flying weather while a sailor could find a cloudy red sunrise a dark omen of foul weather to come.

What about plants to a horticulturist thier prize wining iris could be the finnest most beautiful colorlful, vibrant piece of perfection to someone else it could be "just another stupid flower"

Some people find little or nothing beautiful about nature prefering steal and glass and concrete as thier source for visual stimulation.

Beauty is subjective. This is a rather ancient wisdom or do you believe the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a recent phrase? By that same token beauty in nature is subjective.


My 2 cents

[Davin]

I think to start with we can say that beauty isn't restricted to visual beauty.  We have beautiful sounds, beautiful tastes and smells.  We have beautiful ideas, words, poems, stories.  What is it that unites these different things in their beauty?  I think it is certainly more than "these things make us feel nice inside" - there is something more to it than that.  But bugger me if I can nail it down to a definition.  I think it is very much like our intuitive understanding of goodness, which is equally impossible to define.  So I will have to go away and think about it quite hard and probably not come back with a very good answer.  Others probably have a better idea about what beauty is (even as a subjective value) than me...thoughts?

Yes, lots of thoughts. Beauty is subjective, the reason why I say it is, isn't just some kind of cop out. If I ask people passing by how many apples I'm holding, I would expect them to respond with the amount of apples I'm holding. However if I ask them how beautiful the apples are, I would expect various different responses because it's different to each person. Because the response will vary from person to person I don't see how it can be anything but subjective. I can say a person is wrong if they say three apples when I'm holding two apples, how can I say someone is wrong if they think the apples are beautiful or ugly? I don't think there is a way to determine someone is wrong or right for finding something attractive or unattractive. All I can say is I agree or disagree. Evidence right now points to beauty being a subjective value which is only important to the individual and there is no evidence at all that it can be objectively measured.

[Whitney]

To say that there is an objective standard of beauty is to fool yourself:  take Renaissance projections of beauty vs today.  Are round women still considered beautiful by the masses; no!  Society even went through a crack whore phase where ultra skinny was beautiful (gag).

Some people think that country music is beautiful, others hate it.

Beautiful simply is a word we use to describe things we find pleasing or that society tells us we should find pleasing.

Now...Aesthetics is a whole other can of worms...

[Ellainix]

I think that a standard of objective beauty is going to have to be discrete - so objects are either beautiful or not beautiful, with no sliding scale.

But no one can agree on what is beautiful and what is not.

I also think that beauty and "visual preference" are different things - with the latter being subjective by nature of it being a preference.  I think by any reasonable definition of beauty all those flowers would be beautiful - but the one the girl would personally prefer to look at is something the boy will have to work out himself.  

Good luck proving that beauty is not 100% "visual preference".

[Tank]

As the derail was so severe can we carry on with it? I was quite enjoying it myself