Mae Jemison on teaching arts and sciences together

[crudhousefull]

"We have to revitalize the arts and sciences"...I hate it when people say that without a goal and without the means with which to do it. What a waste of time. Everyone knows that they are good things...what we need is a for people to figure out how to do it. Sponsoring risk-taking is great...but who's going to take a risk because some speaker asks them to take a risk?

[tfed1219]

"There are two kinds of truth; the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art.... Without art science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery."

[CanadianGangster198]

whoa she looks different sice the 5th grade

[molinmusic]

WOW, INSPIRING!!!! Been teaching my Kindergarten students about my namesake, Dr. Anna Fisher the first mother in space and the first human being to repair a malfunctioning space satellite in 1984. As an artist, and honors Science and Math student in HS this is revealing! My dad was both an MIT Physicist AND child prodigy pianist organist winning Boston Globe Science Fair Awards and performing in the Boston Arthur Fiedler Half Shell by age 12, more love Mae Jemison!

[Galactu5]

Love!

Here we have a REAL role model.

I'm in love!

*crossing my fingers* Please don't be religious, PLEASE!!

[kitteh21x]

SHES BEATFUL

[99830459]

FIRST FEMALE BLACK ASTRONAUT

[wetyewruyrtsutrdhjfg]

| do not consider Cubism awesome. But...

I repeat: Dynamic poses. Perspective. Foreshortening. The Egyptians did not have the knowledge of how to do so in the past.

This is not subjective. Go look at Egyptian art. All of their human figures face one direction or another. Do you believe that their art might be improved with additional drawing knowledge?

Also, you seem to know the tastes of an ancient Egyptian. Are you by any chance...an ancient Egyptian? Or do you channel spirits?

[incrediblejessen]

we are here to enlighten ourselves. please take your cynical drivel elsewhere.

[wetyewruyrtsutrdhjfg]

????

Perspective. Animation. Stylization of human beings. Anatomy. Dynamic poses. Foreshortening. New art styles (Cubism, MC Escher, Dali...)

Today's art is not superior to that of the egyptians or romans?

[Entertainmentwf]

well put :).

[jaxx500]

mae jemison is an extremely intelligent and articulate woman.her logic is straightforwaard and honest.

[4K4K1K0]

Is this Chalkboard (Mac version of Comic Sans)?

[UltimateUnibrow]

Have you ever heard of Aristotle? He was one of the greatest scientists of his time and also a great artist. During his time Aristotle created about 5 different fields of scientific study including: biology, metaphysics, optics etc. He spent just as much time with art, analyzing the components of poetic, rhetoric, and philosophy. I believe the reason that Aristotle was such an amazing thinker was because he took the Arts and Science as equals... rather than bicker about their hierarchy.

[zappyhod]

2 questions I'd ask this chick...1: What have you been doing in your spare time?....2: And why haven't you cured cancer yet?

[michikogordon1]

Ummmm. Seems like you should perhaps, pick up a book and read about her accomplishments in your spare time, then may be you can find something more positive and enlightening to say the next time you log on. Or may be the reading you'll do in your spare time , can begin to help you can find a cure for cancer.

[branboom]

i think one thing to think about how we look at the arts, what most of us think of arts are emotional creative works. I do not believe that emotion and creativity are wholly the same.

[Xenophanes21]

OH WOW, i thought she meant arts like humanities, social sciences, poli sci, sociology, anthropology shit like that! fuck that painters aren't gonna save the world. Science 100%, but no science without philosophy, or languages, or logic....

[Xenophanes21]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, What do you think scientists do when they formulate hypothesis', what are they doing when they integrate their results within the current frameworks? and what of the special sciences? Science is not superior, and arts is not inferior, because they are not contradictory or competing in any real way. Science and the Arts share a symbiotic relationship. They are inseparable. Its like trying to dychotomize physics and mathematics, futile!

[branboom]

Great retort.

[MelissaAyr]

I love how Dr. Jemisen gets it. Art and science are the foundation to building a functional society to progress. Art is one of the first disaplines cut in the schools. Abstract, creativity, science, art, is problem solving - new solutions. The deepest wrinkels made in the brain. Think big. Make mistakes. Wonder. Explore.

Melissa Ayr

[reenchanter]

It takes creativity to be open and inspired to wonder and isn't that what scientist do? Love this and thank you..

marilyn

reenchanter.

[abasketmaker]

She says: "Science provides an understanding of a universal experience and the Arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience" .... think about it, the arts and sciences belong together.

[MelissaAyr]

I am able to connect all the information- it is fluid. Science and Art are the same. From wonder we are able to discover and create a new...movement, piece, environment, life.

Melissa Ayr, Artist

[cfrend]

When you have an idea, measure your:

Understanding, Resources, & Will

And you can predict the power of your idea within yourself. TOTAL AWESOMENESS!!! I absolutely LOVE that concept because I had not defined it within myself until I watched this video. Thank you TED

[a42579]

I wish more people understood what Mae Jemison is saying. I spent years living in different countries and studying art and history; now I have a degree in physics and am getting a Masters in Nuclear Engineering. It took me a long time to realize that a lot of people believe in the dichotomy of science and art.

[meb025]

Preach Mae! Aint that the truth!

[lostinaparadox]

you are quite correct ms. jemison, but the troubles plaguing our public education is so much greater than this presentation presents, ill give you an example, i was trying to talk my little brother into buying a laptop to take to school with him as a learning tool, AND IT WASN'T ALLOWED! our approach to teaching is so moronic we should be providing these kids with all the tools they can get their hands on, and saying what would you like to create, what would you like to discover today.

[tyrannicoystercult]

though i already agree with her stance, a speech is always better when it focuses on evidence not a repeteated idea -her topic on the universal instinct to understand is far from articulate..

but i admire the idea and hope people keep it in their thoughts

[gusphraba]

Great person. What she says is true but given the ratings I expected to hear something new.

[DonQuichotteLiberia]

She's cool, I like this way of thinking. However, many of the really clever scientists and engineers have been/are creative people.

[Sondre7]

Many great points.

Though I find it peculiar that she makes the point that an idea wont matter unless we put it into action. Seeing as this is one of the most general and "other people should" kind of presentation I have seen on TED.

Most people on TED are people who HAVE to taken acion on their ideas. I would like to hear what Mae Jemison is willing to do to work towards her idea.

[moninnYem]

Many great points I agree. I disagree however of what you think she's not doing. She spoke on a forum full of bright action takers and maybe intellectually leaders too. That enough was taking action. That enough would inspire someone there. Also I wouldn't be surprise if she was doing something already. You should read her profile on tedtalks.

[Isaacthompson]

Great talk! Thanks

[rasalghul5555]

loved this talk

[Shred2Death]

i love when people say that about left and right side dominant brain people. because it effortlessly overlooks the point, that we have both sides to choose from.

[kidmecha]

That was incredible, I feel the same way about arts and science.

[kutthroat84]

she's on point... it's neither healthy nor promotes intellect to be biased on either side of this subject. i mean all systems are bound by limitations,and can be abrasive,and at sometimes contradictory,but if you have one target isn't it better to have two darts? i mean science has philosophical base. sociological structure..a democratic system with social dimensions.big science and developed thought in the fields of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology

[eArtrash]

id tap that

[Sconz32]

This woman is amazing. I just read her Wikipedia page. Amazing.

[0Dan1]

didn't like this at all.

self-indulgent, simplistic and her manner is irritating.

[deadswans2000]

A lot of generalizations that go nowhere and offer nothing. I understand wanting to accept the offer to speak, but to have no solutions to offer and to mispronounce words throughout your speech is embarrassing.

[lilcryingangel]

copy from ipower it is

[VoiceOfReasonQQ]

i was a wanna be too...i was too young as well...i so identify with her

[aarondkeogh]

best ted in a long time

[jtbovis]

She seems like an interesting person that has a rare in depth perspective on both arts and sciences. I like the way she proposes that they're both important and both have their place.

[FOUADMKHAN]

elementary.

[deaneden79]

I think people don't realize that the separation of analytical and artistic is completely man-made. There's no true source saying that it's that way. It's just the way academia has packaged this to us. I was a fine art student and now I'm a science student. I love both art and math. And that's it. No biggy.

One thing I noticed though: for someone promoting art and creativity, didn't her slides look like crap? When I saw the first one I was like,"Oh know she di'int!"

[7DavidKim]

I think it can be said, that we can go on for days about how intricately connected one subject is to another.

[theseanze]

Totally right. Separation of the two halves of our identity doesn't solve anything. If we're not using both together, we're being misled...I guess that's humanism. Separating the two leads to relying on one side, so that "spiritual" people don't use reason, and practical, logical people tend to be apathetic. Combining the two motivates to move forward and do it with sharper wits.

[DrostanStudio]

She makes a good point... but this just scratches the surface. Today art requires technology, and technology requires science... these three branches of knowledge are now connected in a way that they have never been before... and the world requires people who can bridge the gap.

[ELStalky]

Science = Objective analysis of the natural world

Arts = Subjective expression of emotions/experience etc.

Science and arts are separate areas, they cannot be forcefully mixed.

[dmiller185]

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but I think you've completely missed the point.

[pddwatch81]

ELStalky, your arts vs science definitions are a bit simplistic IMHO.

Doesn't art analyze the natural world as well as social and now technological world too?

In fact isn't it one of art's most important roles to REFLECT the world we live in back at us so we can understanding what we are REALLY doing to it, to each other, to ourselves?

Great art does not attempt to to control the world, destroy it, harness it, make money from it as science/tech does. Therein lies its huge value to humanity,

[ELStalky]

I'll even simplify it further to highlight my point:

Science: Objective

Art: Subjective

=> Objective+Subjective=Subjectiv­e

Science cannot under any circumstances have any subjective elements because then it looses its objective nature.

I don't discredit art in general (even though i think most art is a load of nonsense), both areas have their positive effects but they cannot fuse.

This does not mean technology and art cannot cooperate though.

[pddwatch81]

@ ELStalky , Yes science can be objective and let's say 'abstract' but science today is increasingly being directed simply at *evolving technology* and NOT exploring the nature of the universe objectively.

So you could describe scientists today as helping technology itself to express itself subjectively.

But both terms are limited.

More importantly I think Art has a wider scope. Its aim is to beg questions/ provoke thought whereas technology is always the END of a particular thinking process.

[ELStalky]

That is exactly the point where people get me wrong, i do by no means talk about technology, people who develop technology are not necessarily scientists, "science" is a very limited field and as i said arts do not have a place in it.

[pddwatch81]

OK thanks for clarifying :) So would you say 'true scientists' are often steered (via funding?) into fields with intent to move forward certain technologies or not?

One more thing: even working with true objectivity, science is still limited by whatever instruments are used to measure universe (including math).

So science's objectivity still at best only provides an 'objective truth' for one narrow, often arbitrary, description of the universe (out of many possible descriptions).

continued>

[pddwatch81]

> Its superiority (for the average person) over art is really a measure of the PREDICTABILITY of the technology we see around us which of course conforms to the very limited 'world view' of the science used to create it.

Now technology dominates our lives so does its narrow world view. Art's ability to reflect a much wider world view appears fuzzy and unreliable as if it were art's fault instead of being due to limitations in the narrow technology orientated view we have adopted as reality :)

[AlexMoensChannel]

Are you implying the right brain in general has no place in science?

Lets say you have an idea. But you can't express it, or you don't make it beautiful- what are the odds that it'll be adopted? Do you believe anyone would fund such efforts either?

Philosophy and thought experiments are also very valuable to push science forward. Contrary to common belief, most science isn't just "found," but rather it's thought up, and tested to see if their hypotheses hold.

Right brain is essential here

[AzoreanProud]

Right brain is much more.

And what the big deal with science?

There are other thinks on life.

[AlexMoensChannel]

AzoreanProud, I know the right brain is much more. I responding to somebody else who said that creativity has no place in science- so I simply was pointing out the various ways that science wouldn't exist the way it does today without the right brain.

[TooMuchButtHair]

What's the big deal with science? When was the last time you worried about dying from an infected cut? Have you spent your entire life staving off starvation? Any idea how the infant mortality rate has changed since science tackled the issue? How many mothers die during childbirth as compared to even a century ago?

[creamypouf8]

Wait let me get this straight. You're using a computer to post your comment on a world-wide network and you're asking what's the big deal with science? Just watch "Louise Fresco on feeding the whole world" for an example on what's the big deal with science. You know that Audio Preview button? They put that there for you.

[bennyj38]

your rite... unfortunately I'm from East Africa and 1out of 4 women die from childbirth...hopefully America's life surplus will be granted to other country's in the future.

[DonQuichotteLiberia]

Dude, to understand the world you need science. If you want to live in ignorance, do so. It's easy. Far easier than trying to understand what's actually happening and trying to influence it.

There are admittedly other things on life though.

[HempForPresident]

That they're separate ideas doesn't preclude them from interacting with positive results.

[ELStalky]

Same reply for you cause i'm lazy:

I'll even simplify it further to highlight my point:

Science: Objective

Art: Subjective

=> Objective+Subjective=Subjectiv­e

Science cannot under any circumstances have any subjective elements because then it looses its objective nature.

I don't discredit art in general (even though i think most art is a load of nonsense), both areas have their positive effects but they cannot fuse.

This does not mean technology and art cannot cooperate though.

[hellsreach]

This is not really true. Both art and science have elements of objectivity and subjectivity integrated within each.

Too often people think that art is whatever the artist calls art. This is fundementally wrong. Art is a mode of communication. The content of the artists attempted message is usually subjective. As it is a mode of communication, the method and medium of the communication itself is OBJECTIVE. The translation and valuation of the substance of the message is subjective...

[hellsreach]

Likewise, science starts with the pursuit of a solution to a problem. Determining the value of the solution and seeking the best route to that solution is subjective. The methods to seek the facts to define the problem and possible solution is objective, but finally the value of that solution is, yet again, subjective.

[ELStalky]

Wrong, science does not start with the pursuit to find a solution for a problem, science tries to explain the natural world by building theoretical models and gathering evidence from which conclusions can be drawn, science is by all means objective. There is not a spark of subjectivity in any scientific theory.

Also it's no use whatsoever that the medium of arts is objective, as soon as there is any room for subjectivity it does not have a place in science.

[hellsreach]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid you are simply wrong. On both counts. I cannot fully explain just how fundementally wrong you are. Of course, I'm not going to both because you are clearly one of those types that have made up your mind about things and will not listen to reason. Good day.

[whatnameisavailablee]

yeeeah... get engineers and scientists to know how to act, and gets english undergrads to learn to think.

(I quit engineering largely on the basis that the people were annoying as crap and now I'm taking a program that is combined computers and business, and it's great)

[kineto7]

Well i have some ideas. one is that cars floats a bit from ground. and also that energy is gained from a substance similar to plasma but in purple color.

also that people develop skills they are good at and they like, so they can become like the very best of themselves.

[infinitum17]

she's so right.

[CAlex6977]

And in the year 2009 when they actually post her talk....hahaha

[andid]

I love the message, but as a biologist/singer/actor, art and science clearly have different goals and require starkly different skill sets.

I agree that they are closer than the public admits, but in my opinion they are not manifestations of the same thing. Truth and beauty are important in both, but science prefers truth and art beauty.

[Politicrafty]

I'm contributing all of the vertex combinations or regular tessellations for the future. What more do you want?

[Cannibalzz]

Zzzzzzz..... mhhnggg.... OH!  sorry, just woke up. Is she still talking?

[intrepgun]

another case of academia ignoring the massive problems in society at large. it's almost an insulation problem. scholars are largely insular. very few question the problems of the social order. the ones that do are demonized or ignored for the most part.

'our goal is to integrate science and the arts.'

really? what about ending starvation? one sixth of the human race is starving to death right now. it would be an easy fix if people spoke up about it, because most people don't want others to die

[Zofar]

It's actually more like 2% of the population that is starving.

[intrepgun]

wrong. check out reputable, independent sources such as human rights watch.

where did you get the figure of 2%? and isn't 2 out of every hundred people still absolutely disgusting? just because the majority of them are the "unpeople" as some call them [still]. you've probably never faced any kind of desperate hunger or starvation, i hope you haven't and never do, but those people do require at the very least minimal assistance. it would cost far less than a month's military budget in the US.

[sustainedbyramen]

Out of the allmost 90% impoverished.

The majority of humans on earth wake up andlook for their next meal. Live to eat. Rather than eating to live.

[cmeast]

We have many vital issues that need addressing, however until we've changed the people, the people aren't going to change the way they live their lives. The issues of overpopulation, global warming, starvation, health, factory farming and religion, these issues are symptoms of a greater problem, our general ignorance, our lack of empathy and our rampant materialism. These problems can only be changed through education.

[intrepgun]

i agree to an extent. the vast majority of the world really does care about those problems. it's the top 20 [the political class, mainly in the US, but elsewhere as well] that are so heavily indoctrinated. the rest of us are easily distracted, sure. propaganda works. but if we put a tiny bit of focus on those things, people feel like they're crazy thinking about it. if there is public discussion of these issues, things would very quickly change and we may even get a functioning democracy from it

[intrepgun]

excuse me, '...people *won't* feel like they're crazy thinking about it.'

cutting the trillion dollar military budget would be a huge step in the right direction.

[cmeast]

I have my doubts as to whether my public discussion is enough, however I agree that it's important to stay vocal on these issues if there is to be any hope of change. The majority of people can't grasp the plight of those starving at an emotional level and until they do they will continue to ignore it. I think we have to tackle the issues from all directions and that includes increasing the level of education for the general populace.

[intrepgun]

we're on the same page. i was originally addressing mae's phrase, 'our goal is to integrate science and the arts.' that's not a goal, although it is something useful. like i said, academia is largely quite insular. they're in a minority, it makes sense in a way. they seek goals in their fields, and that's important. perhaps i should have said i wish those in academia had a better notion of solidarity. 'an injury to one is an injury to all.' 500 characters is far too few for worthwhile topics

[cmeast]

Totally, I find myself abbreviating my thoughts and then, after posting, seeing just how easy it could be to misconstrue my thoughts on a subject. Still, as you say, I reckon we're singing from the same song book and I agree, 'goal' does sound like it's the end of a journey rather than a good direction to travel. Her ideas are the means to an end, part of the means anyway.

Nice chatting :)

[intrepgun]

back at you, friend.

[prfctday]

Wise words. I think of utopia as the result of a frame of mind that forces biological changes in humans... I guess I could call that Intelligent Evolution. And something that we are all responsible for and should all work towards. Maybe that's exactly what we're doing anyway but it will take many more thousands of years - or less - or much more. You're right about changing the human. Maybe there'll come a day when we all question ourselves and each other in a natural way. Here's hoping.

[AlexxTheChill]

you're absolutely right. education is key because it makes us aware of things that go on in the world. but it's our intrinsic greed and our ignorance that is keeping us behind. it's time to change. the potential of humanity is greater than anyone can imagine, it's just that many people don't see that because of the "material" in the world. we've lost our true natural selves.

[kineto7]

I agree on this about you. it`s that we have to solve the problem at root level. not to fight with it`s aftereffects/results.

It`s the same as, example, more people would understand that to steal is unnecessary, it would solve the problem at root. while how it is now, people are just fighting with results of stealing, by applying more restrictions or so. well maybe not that good example, but i hope you understand. And sorry if someone doesnt understand me, english is my second language.

[Animalll2003lll]

this is true that arts vs science is a dichotomy in popular culture. and it's not that simple to bring down. because the people in arts and social sciences are fanatics, very often; they often don't rely on reason and facts. it's a huge problem. they are, in many ways, like a sect. and one could say that science too, is a culture and a sect. it's an ideological problem. it's a clash of ideologies, of beliefs and cultures--humanistic vs scientific. of course creativity is useful in both.

[lordmetroid]

2002. lol

[BallinTrollin]

she should have quoted Bob Marley since she was a lol wannabe hippie

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery

none but ourselves can free our mind.

How long shall they kill our prophets

while we aside and look.

[BallinTrollin]

while we STAND aside and look.......

[CorvetteTeaser]

That is why we dont have flying cars around as people in the 60's and 70's thought we'll have on 2000's

[pddwatch81]

So is she saying we should value the Arts as much as science?

Is she saying they both share certain common creation processes and both can benefit civilization and so both have equal value, worth and validity?

IS she saying that art and science are just two different valid expressions of fundamentally sound and worthwhile human qualities - intelligence, imagination, creativity, analysis, logic, free association etc?

Is she saying we need both in order to have a balanced, wise civilization?

[pddwatch81]

- Because if she IS saying all those things she MUST by definition be saying the arts should receive EQUAL funding to science both in education and beyond.

And that we should not just have society steered rapiidly by the new technologies of the moment made by brilliant scientists but also EQUALLY allow society to be wisely influenced (in an equal sense) by equivalent great works by brilliant artists.

After all both art and science are equally valid and important, right?

Balance = civilized :)

[pddwatch81]

.......However, I suspect in our current age of out-of-control technological advancement what she is really saying is that it is more convenient (for technology's continued evolution) for science to swallow up the arts and merge and consolidate the two as one (like the banks!), and in doing so redefine the Arts as that part of art only which helps to further the cause and agenda of technology's evolution, or at least define art as something that does not STAND IN TECHNOLOGY'S WAY.

[pddwatch81]

The faster science and technology evolves the less wise we can be about it's implications BY DEFINITION.

This is because wisdom is a product of experience.

Today's (far more powerful) new technologies are developed in years/ months no longer generations/ centuries!

If science/ tech provide the bus for humanity's ride (now accelerating!) then Art is the glass windshield, headlights, map and the DESIRED DESTINATION!

That is why we need art and we need it SEPARATE from science/ technology!

[JamesTheTank]

She might be trying to ride the curve ahead. When we look at the allosphere we see some artistic minds involved. The greatest leaps happen when people of different fields come together. I largely agree with you, but sometimes you can convey more with images (art) than you can with words.

I love this, "If science/ tech provide the bus for humanity's ride (now accelerating!) then Art is the glass windshield, headlights, map and the DESIRED DESTINATION!",

beautifully put.

[pddwatch81]

I looked at the alloshpere (briefly). Seemed a perfect example of art being given a role only when it furthers science/ technology.

The opposite scenario would be to only encourage science where it furthered art - inventing better canvasses, new paints and methods of working stone or metal. The point being there's nothing 'wrong' with these applications but it would be selling science short and science's role and *potential* in people's minds would be diminished! - Just like art's role is now.

[DauthiPsycho]

i agree. they don't mix. an artist will always see things way differently than a scientist. Leonardo da Vinci is proof. his thirst for science nearly starved his artistic push. not his talent, his want to paint.

[dackjaniels555]

You can't mix art and science!

Art is about Emotions.

Science is about Empirical Facts.

THEY DON'T MIX.

[purv989]

Ha, ha, what? Who says there aren't empirical facts in art. I would say there is fact and truth in most art. Ever heard of William Carlos Williams-Science and poetry.

[BallinTrollin]

to be honest, if we have CANNABIS legalized, we're going to have another 'Renaissance'. Also CREATIONISM is delaying our progress.

[kalaway]

It's always important to distinguish between chastity and impotence :) That's a great quote!

[PigLeather]

I can not understand art

[Chilldogg]

Why do our schools too often fail to honor both the right and the left brain? Art is important. Design goes hand in hand with engineering.

[originaldna]

B/C the ruling class don't want you thinking for yourself.

[BallinTrollin]

because most teachers are robots...