Scientists - please stop trying to appear art-friendly by making absurd statements

While some from the arts or educated in the humanities proclaim a profound disinterest in science, most scientists have an interest in the arts. However, sometimes scientists go too far in trying to appear art-friendly or to make arty types feel loved. One of the most egregious examples of this recently has been the attempt to claim that Vincent van Gogh had a deep and intuitive understanding of fluid dynamics.

Last Wednesday's Times newspaper dedicated more than half a page to this bizarre suggestion. According to article-writer Rhys Blakely, a study of one of van Gogh's most famous paintings, The Starry Night 'suggests he also had an uncanny grasp of some of the most elusive laws of physics.' No he didn't.

The idea from this study, lead author Dr Yongxiang Huang of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is that the swirly bits in van Gogh's painting are 'not randomly placed' but rather 'follow patterns that appear at just the right distances from one another with the correct size differences and intensities - as predicted by Kolmogorov's physical laws of turbulence.' (Incidentally, this idea isn't new - it featured in a pre-print from 2006.)

I'm sorry, but this is pure fantasy - wishful thinking from those who want to see a connection where none exists. At the very best this is falling into the trap of confusing correlation with causality. There is no reason to suppose that the painter had some uncanny grasp of something not observable by human senses. At the worst it's playing fast and loose with data that vaguely approximates to theory.

We shouldn't need this kind of justification to the art world for science. It's embarrassing. The article mentions Richard Feynman - it would have been more beneficial to have read Feynman's address on 'cargo cult science' because refers to a parallel with what we see here, even though the application is rather different.

Still, it's a great painting and inspired a rather good piece of music in Don McLean's Vincent (even if I disagree with McLean that lovers often commit suicide).

Image: public domain

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog