Skip to main content

Science 2.0/3.0


As I've already intimated in my preliminary explorations of literature and art in the web 2.0 environment, the web 2.0 paradigm (or what might simply be called the web or internet paradigm) informs my investigation of an empirical epistemology and its aesthetic and scientistic bifurcations. Thus, just as much as the internet reformulates aesthetic questions and their relation to our ontological framework (regardless of whether we use it or not), so will it reformulate the pragmatic affairs of our scientific endeavours. Insofar as its tools are adopted and employed, it will shake up and reconfigure the current structure of science practice; these changes will, in partial parallel with aesthetic modifications, provide paradigmatic shifts that could facilitate a move more towards what might be outlined as an open and fallible system of practical inquiry. Simultaneously, it could do the opposite, but this only enhances the need for social and critical engagement with the new problematics that coincide with its structure.

This position still, is resolutely for the use of a web whose presence is real and increasingly prevalent, as it comes to define our virtual-global society, so it will quite functionally redefine our being and knowledge - and what actualized measures we take with them. In this way, the web is *the* location for scientific forums (in their actuality and speculation) - and although its uptake in the science community is slowed in relation to the large scale of its actual institutions, its impact is inevitable: already its general use is in certain respects common - such as in the online subscription database, and the article-driven search engine.

Mark Hahnel's Science 3.0 (I'm techblob there) is a new hub in the continued move to interpolate science, its commentators and practitioners into the web realm. This move is, as I've said, inevitable in my opinion; I think that participation in these spaces (and the creation thereof as Hahnel and co have done, no slight task) is increasingly relevant in how science is and will come to be defined. As I have done with aesthetic and literary endeavours, so I hope to bridge my interest in science (therein unified with technology) through a similar move, compounded by a return to the pathways and processes of formulating artistic creations in a web environment, that explore its content formally and in subject.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical Science and New Ways to Think About Knowledge

In a world that is rapidly changing—where new technologies, environmental crises, and societal challenges continuously shape our future—how we think about science, knowledge, and creativity must evolve. Enter radical science : a groundbreaking approach that blends scientific inquiry, artistic expression, and technological innovation to solve global problems in bold, interdisciplinary ways. But what exactly is radical science, and how does it differ from traditional science? This article explores the concept of radical science and why it’s becoming a crucial framework for understanding the complexities of our modern world. What is Radical Science At its core, radical science represents a departure from traditional scientific methods that typically segregate art, technology, and science into separate spheres. Radical science integrates these disciplines, encouraging collaboration between scientists, artists, engineers, and philosophers. It challenges the conventional belief that scientif...

Pascal and Laplace: Probabilities of the Divine and Divine Probabilities

  Pascal's Wager is the opportunity for a mathematician turned theologian to justify their view of cosmic order in the mathematical ways they've come to know.  What's the pay off if you're right and what's the pay off if you're wrong.  If the pay off for being right far outweighs that for being wrong, should we out of principle take the wager? Ask Laplace and we have a different framing.  Now probability has replaced the divine role so the aspect of choice has been eliminated.  Probability no longer informs a bet on divine order, divine order is a subsidiary part of probability.  Laplace's famous demon is not an impossible gambit on an all-controlling deity as popularly assumed, but a thesis that cosmic order can be predicated by sheer mathematical analysis.  Pascal's world still contains Christian state law, but Laplace's does not.  How do we culturally bind people without such moral institutions? It turns out fairly easily.  We don't need t...

Bridging the Gap: How Art Can Help Us Understand Science

  Science can be intimidating. Whether it’s the abstract equations of physics or the complex biological processes that govern life, many scientific concepts can feel distant and inaccessible to the public. But what if there was a way to make these ideas more tangible, relatable, and easier to understand? What if art could bridge the gap between complex science and the general public? In recent years, the integration of art and science has proven to be a powerful tool for not just communicating scientific ideas, but for expanding the ways in which we think about and engage with the world. In this article, we explore how art plays a vital role in making science more accessible, engaging, and emotionally resonant. Through creative coding, digital art, and speculative design, art provides a new lens through which we can explore the wonders of the natural world and the mysteries of the universe. Art as a Visualization Tool for Science One of the primary ways that art helps us understand...