Everybody a breeder ?
- Thread starter silverhazefiend
- Start date
- Status
No, science=art not the other way
For the third time this thread, pay close attention to the primary definition.(in bold)
Ok now that we've cleared that up, more science!
For the third time this thread, pay close attention to the primary definition.(in bold)
Ok now that we've cleared that up, more science!
To me it seems they are using the term to describe things they simply do not understand, as if it was some kind of magic unattainable via scientific methods, and that goes against everything I hold to be true.
Even the painter, the "artist" on the streets of Rome, is -whether he understands this or not- utilizing science in evoking a feeling in your brain through his work. This is overboard I am sure for many, but this is how I see the world.
Even the painter, the "artist" on the streets of Rome, is -whether he understands this or not- utilizing science in evoking a feeling in your brain through his work. This is overboard I am sure for many, but this is how I see the world.
That was never what I was saying. Though I may not understand it, I can can call someone who does an artist, because that's the definition.
And this was my point. The people who have the skills may have learned them by experience and observation, and that's science, and art.
I don't think that a guy who takes two random parents and crosses them is an artist. He is a breeder, by definition, but not an artist.
To elevate yourself to the level of artist you need to know either through experience, or scientific observation, what you are doing.
The opposition of art and science is historical and recent, not eternal or necessary.
"Art" comes from the Latin ars, "skill," "science" from scientia, meaning "knowledge."
You can get a flavor of "art" apart from the opposition with science in such terms as "artifice" or "artificial," even "artful." Skill, technique, craft.
Those of you who know Spanish or another Romance language may get the distinction between saber and conocer: basically, knowing *that* and knowing *how*.
It's art to know how to do something, and not to bother with why it works, and science to care why it works.
But do the whys, when known, improve the hows?
Let's try some of the suggestions floated in the thread and find out.
"Art" comes from the Latin ars, "skill," "science" from scientia, meaning "knowledge."
You can get a flavor of "art" apart from the opposition with science in such terms as "artifice" or "artificial," even "artful." Skill, technique, craft.
Those of you who know Spanish or another Romance language may get the distinction between saber and conocer: basically, knowing *that* and knowing *how*.
It's art to know how to do something, and not to bother with why it works, and science to care why it works.
But do the whys, when known, improve the hows?
Let's try some of the suggestions floated in the thread and find out.
@tom
Never, just look at the definition.
Any skill(for example applying the scientific method to a problem) that requires knowledge, learned by experience, study or observation is, by definition, art.
Even if we could answer all the how/why questions in the universe, the application of that knowledge would still be art.
Never, just look at the definition.
Any skill(for example applying the scientific method to a problem) that requires knowledge, learned by experience, study or observation is, by definition, art.
Even if we could answer all the how/why questions in the universe, the application of that knowledge would still be art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding
[1] Breeding Field Crops. 1995. Sleper and Poehlman. Page 3
[1] Breeding Field Crops. 1995. Sleper and Poehlman. Page 3
TA, you are all hung up on Webster, Mapinguari's "It's art to know how to do something, and not to bother with why it works, and science to care why it works." Is much closer to the true historical definition. Anyway is this the totality of your input? mkay, thanks lol.
stickshift
Active member
Science is empirically based and testable, is art?
Plant Breeding: Art or Science?
http://www.agweb.com/article/plant_breeding_art_or_science/
The role of plant breeding has changed dramatically over the years, particularly as procedures that used to lean heavily on human instinct and insight have been replaced with high-tech computerized processes.
"We have fingerprinted thousands of inbreds and are using powerful computers to sort them all out," notes Joe Keaschall, DuPont Pioneer regional corn research director. "Computerization is speeding up a lot of our processes, whether we’re looking for genetic patterns of drought tolerance, strength against problems like Goss’s wilt or brittle snap, or any number of things."
And in the video below, Bayer CropScience global cotton breeding manager Lloyd McCall recalls how plant breeding methods have changed over the years, and how art still plays a role in good breeding programs.
http://www.agweb.com/article/plant_breeding_art_or_science/
The role of plant breeding has changed dramatically over the years, particularly as procedures that used to lean heavily on human instinct and insight have been replaced with high-tech computerized processes.
"We have fingerprinted thousands of inbreds and are using powerful computers to sort them all out," notes Joe Keaschall, DuPont Pioneer regional corn research director. "Computerization is speeding up a lot of our processes, whether we’re looking for genetic patterns of drought tolerance, strength against problems like Goss’s wilt or brittle snap, or any number of things."
And in the video below, Bayer CropScience global cotton breeding manager Lloyd McCall recalls how plant breeding methods have changed over the years, and how art still plays a role in good breeding programs.
Plant Breeding - Iowa state university department of agronomy
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/academic/graduate/plantbreeding.aspx
Plant Breeding - is the science and art of improving crop plants through the study and application of genetics, agronomy, statistics, plant pathology, entomology, and related sciences.
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/academic/graduate/plantbreeding.aspx
Plant Breeding - is the science and art of improving crop plants through the study and application of genetics, agronomy, statistics, plant pathology, entomology, and related sciences.
Burbank referred to it as art as well Weird, so did and does everybody who did not have a firm enough grasp of what was going on. There is much I do not understand, but if I am successful anyway, I'd be a chump to be calling it art instead of the truth, which is "here's a part that I don't understand how I managed to be sucessful"....
rhinoman 1
Active member
thats nerdism
An interesting article regarding a book on the history of the Tulip
it shows how the war had a profound effect on breeding and how it was a catalyst for breeding ornamental to be a personal an artistic until after the war which changed the dynamic
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/len/summary/v034/34.3gessert.html
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Leonardo 34.3 (2001) 279-280
Book Review
The Tulip
The Tulip by Anna Pavord. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, N.Y., U.S.A., and London, U.K., 1999. 439 pp. Trade, $40.00. ISBN: 1-58234-013-7.
One of the many changes that World War II brought about was drastic simplification of the way we see ornamental plants. Before the war, plant breeding and art were so closely allied that some writers, artists and plant breeders claimed garden varieties of plants as works of fine art. After the war, art and plant breeding went their separate ways. Ornamental plants became decorative objects and consumer products, and genetics, which had previously belonged to everyone, became the more-or-less exclusive property of science, business, agriculture and medicine.
The dissociation of art and genetics trivialized not only ornamental plants, but writing about ornamental plants. This genre, which had always been somewhat rarefied, became more than ever a vehicle of escape -- an escape into charm and detail, into a parallel universe where nothing uninvited can intrude, not even the last half century. Controversy does not ruffle this realm, and taste is so entirely individual that it is tasteless to discuss.
While no contemporary books explore genetic art as straightforwardly as did Sacheverell Sitwell's Old Fashioned Flowers, published in 1939, several excellent ornamental plant histories that engage aesthetic issues have recently appeared. For example, Jack Goody's The Culture of Flowers examines the class underpinnings of ornamental plant cultivation, Peter Valder's The Garden Plants of China explores a major non-Western gardening tradition, and Gerd Krussmann's The Complete Book of Roses traces the co-evolution of roses and human cultures. Now, Anna Pavord reaffirms some of the connections between art and ornamental plants in an excellent new book, The Tulip. She tells the story of tulips with a scholarly thoroughness unlikely to be rivaled anytime soon, and yet the book has the wit and charm of the very best garden writing. I feel that The Tulip is, quite simply, the best history of any single breeding complex ever published.
There are some 120 species of tulips, most of them native to central Asia. The first clear evidence of their presence in gardens comes from thirteenth-century Persian poems. Two centuries later, the Turks had glorious tulip gardens in Istanbul, and eventually gardeners there grew more than 1,000 named varieties. Connoisseurs favored extremely elongated petals that tapered to needle-like points, completely unlike the rounded, blocky flowers preferred today. The story of the tulip under cultivation is a story of aesthetic change, as the plant moved from Islamic to Christian civilization in the sixteenth century, and then from scholars' gardens to those of aristocrats to the allotment gardens of the first plant breeders (who were known as florists). Each of these moves resulted in major alterations in the plant. Since about 1850, tulips have become "democratized" and available to all.
Along the way, we see tulips reflected in tile-making, herbals, prints and flower painting. Tulips contributed to the rise of Dutch flower painting because the flower arrived in Europe just as the genre was emerging. In the early 1600s, tulips were so expensive that paintings of the most coveted varieties, even by the best artists, were cheaper than actual plants. Tulip owners wanted records of their treasures, and bargain-conscious collectors acquired paintings in lieu of the real thing.
Pavord delights in quirks and excesses. Some seventeenth century wunderkammer were gardens of living rarities, with tulips as centerpieces. Men bankrupted themselves for tulips, and from 1634 to 1637 the entire Dutch economy fell hostage to the plant. At the height of "tulipmania," single bulbs sold for more than the cost of the most expensive houses in Amsterdam. According to the "Parallel Universe School" of garden writing, tulipmania was inexplicable madness, but Pavord sees it as an expression of capitalism.
it shows how the war had a profound effect on breeding and how it was a catalyst for breeding ornamental to be a personal an artistic until after the war which changed the dynamic
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/len/summary/v034/34.3gessert.html
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Leonardo 34.3 (2001) 279-280
Book Review
The Tulip
The Tulip by Anna Pavord. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, N.Y., U.S.A., and London, U.K., 1999. 439 pp. Trade, $40.00. ISBN: 1-58234-013-7.
One of the many changes that World War II brought about was drastic simplification of the way we see ornamental plants. Before the war, plant breeding and art were so closely allied that some writers, artists and plant breeders claimed garden varieties of plants as works of fine art. After the war, art and plant breeding went their separate ways. Ornamental plants became decorative objects and consumer products, and genetics, which had previously belonged to everyone, became the more-or-less exclusive property of science, business, agriculture and medicine.
The dissociation of art and genetics trivialized not only ornamental plants, but writing about ornamental plants. This genre, which had always been somewhat rarefied, became more than ever a vehicle of escape -- an escape into charm and detail, into a parallel universe where nothing uninvited can intrude, not even the last half century. Controversy does not ruffle this realm, and taste is so entirely individual that it is tasteless to discuss.
While no contemporary books explore genetic art as straightforwardly as did Sacheverell Sitwell's Old Fashioned Flowers, published in 1939, several excellent ornamental plant histories that engage aesthetic issues have recently appeared. For example, Jack Goody's The Culture of Flowers examines the class underpinnings of ornamental plant cultivation, Peter Valder's The Garden Plants of China explores a major non-Western gardening tradition, and Gerd Krussmann's The Complete Book of Roses traces the co-evolution of roses and human cultures. Now, Anna Pavord reaffirms some of the connections between art and ornamental plants in an excellent new book, The Tulip. She tells the story of tulips with a scholarly thoroughness unlikely to be rivaled anytime soon, and yet the book has the wit and charm of the very best garden writing. I feel that The Tulip is, quite simply, the best history of any single breeding complex ever published.
There are some 120 species of tulips, most of them native to central Asia. The first clear evidence of their presence in gardens comes from thirteenth-century Persian poems. Two centuries later, the Turks had glorious tulip gardens in Istanbul, and eventually gardeners there grew more than 1,000 named varieties. Connoisseurs favored extremely elongated petals that tapered to needle-like points, completely unlike the rounded, blocky flowers preferred today. The story of the tulip under cultivation is a story of aesthetic change, as the plant moved from Islamic to Christian civilization in the sixteenth century, and then from scholars' gardens to those of aristocrats to the allotment gardens of the first plant breeders (who were known as florists). Each of these moves resulted in major alterations in the plant. Since about 1850, tulips have become "democratized" and available to all.
Along the way, we see tulips reflected in tile-making, herbals, prints and flower painting. Tulips contributed to the rise of Dutch flower painting because the flower arrived in Europe just as the genre was emerging. In the early 1600s, tulips were so expensive that paintings of the most coveted varieties, even by the best artists, were cheaper than actual plants. Tulip owners wanted records of their treasures, and bargain-conscious collectors acquired paintings in lieu of the real thing.
Pavord delights in quirks and excesses. Some seventeenth century wunderkammer were gardens of living rarities, with tulips as centerpieces. Men bankrupted themselves for tulips, and from 1634 to 1637 the entire Dutch economy fell hostage to the plant. At the height of "tulipmania," single bulbs sold for more than the cost of the most expensive houses in Amsterdam. According to the "Parallel Universe School" of garden writing, tulipmania was inexplicable madness, but Pavord sees it as an expression of capitalism.
Ok Tom, here's something for you to answer.
What are your thoughts on feminized breeding. You brought up feminizing/reversing to verify stability of desired traits, but what are your thoughts on working an xx line.
Is it feasible, what problems do you see, if both are stable mothers what could end up wrong genetically long term, is it more feasible to just find two stable ladies and cross them once(ie avoid ix and bx)
What are your thoughts on feminized breeding. You brought up feminizing/reversing to verify stability of desired traits, but what are your thoughts on working an xx line.
Is it feasible, what problems do you see, if both are stable mothers what could end up wrong genetically long term, is it more feasible to just find two stable ladies and cross them once(ie avoid ix and bx)
rhinoman 1
Active member
Breeding with fems is like playin cards with half a deck.
when we choose something based on our senses (including the sensation of being high)
and we enjoy something based on them that is a personal preference
finding things that stimulates other peoples senses using your own senses is science, but you are the computer and the written book is instinct
this why like beer food and music there are elements that are artistic
there is no grand formula that proves anyone's taste is universally perfect and science cannot do a blood or genetics test and tell you what you like to taste smell and feel (high)
and we enjoy something based on them that is a personal preference
finding things that stimulates other peoples senses using your own senses is science, but you are the computer and the written book is instinct
this why like beer food and music there are elements that are artistic
there is no grand formula that proves anyone's taste is universally perfect and science cannot do a blood or genetics test and tell you what you like to taste smell and feel (high)
science is a tool we use to actualize our intuition and wherewithal, without those attributes there is no driving force behind it(science) and without us, there is no reason to understand it
the universe obeys the laws of science it doesn't consider them
we are the only creature that does that
science is a tool we use to understand the fabric of the world around us but science is still born of us as are its objectives
the universe obeys the laws of science it doesn't consider them
we are the only creature that does that
science is a tool we use to understand the fabric of the world around us but science is still born of us as are its objectives
I despise the term feminized breeding (almost as much as IX BX lol), it has caused many o folk to take their minds off the true value of reversal techniques, which is that we can plug cannabis into many other much more efficient breeding programs. I explained the science/maths (or tried to) of that earlier,, S3 = F8+. I see no problems with it, and any place anybody else sees a problem with it is quite easily countered.
- Status
