EDVIN ØSTERGAARD
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Section for Learning and Teacher Education [email protected]
Sensing Beauty: The Aesthetics of Science
Olaf L. Müller (2019). Zu schön, um falsch zu sein. Über die Ästhetik in der Naturwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. ISBN 978-3-10-050709-9
The history of science is full of explorers who find themselves faced with the wonders and greatness of creation. In The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin repeatedly expresses a fascination for the grandeur of nature and the beauty of forms that have been and are being evolved. When discussing the emergence of species as descent with modifications, he claims that these newcomers will add to the beautiful and harmonious diversity of nature. A similar attitude of awe Johannes Kepler expresses in Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596) when he characterizes God’s universe as an organization of perfect order and argues that the divine architect necessarily must have created a work of the high- est beauty. Compared to such historical texts, today’s science seems to be cleaned of any aesthetic endeavours. In school, mathematics and science subjects are seldom in dialogue with the arts. Every- thing concerning aesthetics is usually taken care of in subjects like visual art and music. Faced with the profound differences in cultures of art and science in school, we are lucky to find at least some initiatives that strive at exploring possibilities of uniting them. The recently published Why Science and Art Creativities Matter (Colucci-Gray & Burnard, 2020) is but one example of how art and sci- ence subjects are currently approaching each other.
Which constructive role has aesthetics historically played – and might currently play – in scientists’
inquiry and knowledge building? Zu schön, um falsch zu sein. Über die Ästhetik in der Naturwis- senschaft explores the productive role of aesthetics in scientific work. The book offers an exciting and deep insight into both intuitive and systematic processes of scientists’ learning and knowledge building. Its author, Olaf L. Müller, is a professor at Humboldt University in Berlin in the natural phi- losophy and theory of science. Even though the book does not address science education explicitly, it is useful for those who are concerned about fostering science teaching and its relation to aesthetics.
Müller explores the driving forces in inquiring the mysteries of nature’s appearances, specifically how art and aesthetics contribute to a scientific understanding of the world. These are relevant aspects of teaching and learning science as well. The title Zu schön, um falsch zu sein is a play with the German proverb “too good to be true” (“zu schön, um wahr zu sein”) and is literally translated as Too good not to be true. Müller juxtaposes beauty (“Schönheit”) with truth (“Wahrheit”) to indicate one of the cen- tral theses of his inquiry: beauty and truth are not excluding but rather mutually related dimensions in scientific exploration. For those researchers that Müller selects from the book of history, a sense of beauty is more than a mere subjective, personal feeling; it seems to reinforce cognitive activities and contributes to theory building. With reference to Weinberg (1992), Müller maintains that the sense of beauty not only supports the physicists’ building of new theories, “but also affirms the judgement of the validity of those theories” (p. 133).
Olaf Müller’s book appears as both bold and multilayered exploration of scientific progress and art’s knowledge-enhancing character. Its argument is guided by the general thesis that the sense of beauty that scientists use to assess their work results is closely related to, though not identical with the aes- thetic sense with which we judge works of art (p. 22). Müller explores an impressively wide-ranging diversity of sources; from the great discoveries in the history of physics to the creative works of artists;
from historical case descriptions to contemporary philosophy; from Goethe’s optical experiments to the scores of Bach. The seventeen chapters are organized into five parts. In the introduction, Müller situates his approach within the philosophical tradition, showing how, especially in physics, scientists have used beauty to judge whether a theory is correct or not. In the first part, the reader is taken on a journey through the history of science, with stopovers in Einstein’s theory of relativity, the struggles of Copernicus toward the heliocentric worldview, and Kepler’s admiration of the beauty of the planet orbits. In part two and three, Müller invites the reader to participate in Newton’s optical experimenta- tion with light in his experimentum crucis. Here, Müller examines the experience of beauty in works of art (i.e., Mondrian and van der Weyden), music (i.e., Scarlatti and Lachenmann), and poetry (i.e., Heine and Storm). He proceeds to discuss pureness, clarity and symmetries as aesthetic expressions of both scientific experiments and works of art and music. The engaging investigation is continued in part four, now with a closer look at Goethe’s theory of colours and the practices of the Vienna art- ist Ingo Nussbaumer. In part five, Müller broaches the question of potential philosophical parallels between art and science when it comes to aesthetic judgements. The discussion includes a broad spectrum of topics; from the organic becoming of Wagner’s music to the question of aesthetic taste and scientific credibility. The leitmotif throughout this eclectic journey is the many fruitful venues between scientific processes of reason and aesthetic sensibility.
Müller’s argument heavily depends on the meaning of “beauty” and “aesthetics”. Müller rejects the need for a clear-cut definition of the two notions (p. 28). I do agree when he maintains that for those who are alien to the experience of beauty, such definitions do little or nothing to enhance the experi- ence. Of course, the meaning of the notions emerges in the manner how he uses them throughout the text. However, a discussion of the variety of meanings would hardly do damage. To the reader, “an intuitive preunderstanding of the concepts” (p. 28) is not enough to fully understand Müller’s long and ornate argument. In the course of the argument, it becomes clear to the reader what “scientific beauty” (p. 122) and “beautiful experimental result” (p. 141) signifies. It is, however, not apparent how we should understand phrases like “come closer to truth … in an aesthetic manner” (p. 75) or “an aes- thetic résumé” (p. 345). The way he rhetorically juxtaposes “beautiful physics” and “beautiful music”
in the same sentence (p. 143) does not provide the reader with a deeper understanding of neither the concept “beauty” nor the kinship between the two. Besides, clear-cut definitions might counteract the tendency to assign beauty and aesthetics to the mere subjective domain. In the context of potential science educational implications, it seems crucial to avoid conventionalized associations of beauty and aesthetics.
In a study of the potential of joining aesthetics and science learning, I attempt to broaden the differ- ent understandings of aesthetics (Østergaard, 2017). Researchers in science education use aesthetics in associations with the beauty of art (Pugh & Girod, 2007), the appreciation of nature (Flannery, 1992), the processes of doing science and the beauty of intellectual/scientific ideas (Wickman, 2006;
Girod, 2007), and cognitive activities in students’ learning (Girod et al., 2003; Root-Bernstein, 2002).
Etymologically speaking, the term aesthetic relates to its Greek origin (aisthesthai, to perceive, watch, sense or observe), which implies that aesthetic experiences are sense experiences (Østergaard, 2019).
If we add John Dewey’s understanding of aesthetic experience as being-one-with and the notion of aesthetics as a specific style (i.e., Bauhaus aesthetics), it becomes evident that when talking about aesthetics, we enter a field of multiple associations and understandings. To me, this spectrum of di- verging meanings requires some explicit clarifications.
When discussing the relation between beauty and truth, Müller emphasizes “formal beauty”, the kind of beauty associated with harmoniously structured experimental arrangements and the symmetry of
mathematical equations (p. 23). Formal beauty is related to physicists’ notion of a “beautiful theory”
and “the beauty of physical laws” (Weinberg, 1992). The beauty of a mathematical equation is, accord- ing to Dijkgraaf (2019), related to the power to capture the truth. For skilled physicists and mathema- ticians, beauty might very well appear as symmetry, balance, and serenity, suggesting that they sense the beauty of the principles and laws behind the appearances. In their influential work Symmetry in Science and Art, Shubnikov and Koptsik (1974) argue that symmetry is “one of the very important factors in beauty of form” (p. 7) and that the experience of symmetry as beauty is connected to the discovery of its laws. Formal beauty contrasts with what I characterize as “sensuous beauty”, that is, the beauty of directly perceived phenomena. Beautiful objects speak for themselves and their beauty is not necessarily subordinated some underlying laws. To enjoy the melancholic sonority of a black- bird or become captured by the solemnness of Händel’s Messiah does not require knowledge about how birds sing to mark their territory or the harmonic structures of a Baroque composition. The joy- ful experience is of an immediate, pre-conceptual character. To capture and value sensuous beauty is highly relevant in terms of science education.
The idea that the appearances can be described according to some underlying principles goes back a long time. A grounding father of modern scientific thought, the astronomist and physicist Galileo pro- posed that the only language nature was capable of speaking was that of mathematics, an assumption that since his time has become a dictum in natural science. The phenomenologist Edmund Husserl re- ferred to this historical process as the mathematization of nature; the process by which “nature itself becomes … a mathematical manifold” (Husserl, 1970, p. 23). What Husserl criticized about natural sciences was not the use of mathematical models per se, but rather the fact that the mathematically idealized world is mistaken for the everyday world. An ontological position where abstract scientific laws are considered more real than everyday reality itself, Harvey (1989) defines as the ontological reversal. Here, the models of and laws behind the phenomena take on a higher ontological status than the experienced phenomena themselves. This line of thought is echoed when Müller (p. 130) quotes Weinberg (1992, p. 137; italics in original): “The symmetries that are really important in nature are not the symmetries of things, but the symmetries of laws”. The beauty of laws, propositions and symmetries seems to be on a higher ontological level compared to the beauty of things as they appear in our direct experience. It is like claiming that the real beauty of a sunflower lies not in its majestic gestalt or how it willingly turns the capitula towards the sun, but rather in the mathematical patterns, i.e., the Fibonacci sequence found in its seed structures. But phenomenologically speaking, the plant in its pre-conceptual appearance is what first meets our senses. The experiences of immediate at- traction to the sunflower forms a prerequisite for further exploring its structures. And if we consider music and the arts, is not a closer examination of the orderly structures of Bach’s polyphonic music motivated by some profound experience of joy and grandeur when listening to his music?
When science turns to the arts, there is a danger of missing out on the arts’ genuine character. Art frequently ends up as a means for achieving cognitive, scientific insights. Whereas a Newton doubt- lessly uses aesthetic judgement when analyzing optical experiments, its beautiful structure is not his main achievement. Rather, aesthetic judgement is a means to achieve new scientific knowledge.
In contrast, for visual artists like Paul Klee or composers like Johann Sebastian Bach, the aesthetic expression is of primary significance. Even though Müller’s attention is on the sense of beauty in science, he includes a myriad of examples from art and music. The strength of the project lies in his sincere attempt to highlight aesthetic appreciation in scientific endeavours. His discussion of art and music, however, tends to simplify the complexity of aesthetic-artistic mastery and expression. There is in art modernism already a long tradition of refraining from aesthetics as “the beautiful” and art’s main intention as entertainment and pleasure. Helmut Lachenmann (2004), one of the composers that Müller refers to, broadens the discussion of beauty in contemporary music by turning to the con- ventional audience’s listening habits. He provokingly defines beauty as “rejection of habits” (p. 135), thus critiquing the audience’s expectation of constant amusement. To compare the aesthetic sense
“with which we judge works of art” with natural scientists’ aesthetic judgement – so Müller’s general thesis (p. 22) – indicates an intention of a parallel exploration of artistic and scientific endeavours.
His discussion of the thesis, however, appears as unbalanced because “we” as audience of art and mu- sic is such a diverse group, compared to the highly qualified scientists who get a chance to speak in the text. A careful study of professional artists at work will, I claim, reveal similarities to natural scientists regarding both aesthetic judgement, creative thinking, and systematic methods of exploration.
Müller is aware of the text’s physics-centered line of thought (p. 146) and his elaboration on “beau- tiful ideas” is obviously embedded in physics and mathematics. Physicists have a long tradition of seeking – and finding – the laws hidden in the appearances of nature. But physicists as well, as Roth (2015) notes, “continue to marvel at a beautiful sunrise or sunset” (p. 475). Here, it is not the laws of gravity of the celestial bodies that evoke the sensation of beauty, but rather the immediate experience of the evening sun and the landscape painted with warm colours. Compared to school physics, the biology subject is marked by direct encountering with living phenomena as they appear in immediate experience. In biology class, students can come in close contact with nature’s phenomena in the living environment. Over the course of the years, I have met quite a few science teacher students who refer to personal experiences and encountering with living nature as a source of inspiration for choosing higher education in science. The sensing of natural beauty seems to be a motivation for students en- tering the path of scientific education. In Müller’s book, the aspect of sensuous beauty plays a subor- dinate role. This fact does not necessarily weaken his argument, but the inclusion of sensuous beauty would have strengthened it considerably.
When considering potential implications for science education based on Müller’s argument, I would like to highlight three aspects. First, Müller convincingly shows how scientific knowledge is created in the span between systematic experimentation, aesthetic judgement and acceptance from the scientific community. Such a perspective of the dynamics of scientific knowledge forms a reaction against the dictum that all knowledge already exists and should merely be read. The process-oriented aspect of science is further in line with current science educational attempts to assist students actively in their learning process. Several of these emphasize students’ creation of their own knowledge in learning, as for example inquiry-based learning, action learning and phenomenon-based science education.
Second, it is of interest for both science teachers, teacher students and teacher educators to explore the artistic and the scientific inquiry as interwoven processes of knowledge building. Here, it is es- sential to acknowledge the two meanings of sensing beauty; as an immediate, pre-conceptual sensing of natural phenomena, and as the sensing of symmetries and underlying order. When physicists talk about the beauty of theory, this kind of experience emerges, Müller notes (p. 29), after a long intellec- tual struggle with the matter. Aesthetic experiences in art and nature, in contrast, do not appear only for highly specialized and advanced intellectuals, but in immediate pre-reflective sensing. Thus, the sensuous beauty and formal beauty are contrasting, though complementary dimensions; the uncon- sidered sensation of beauty on the one hand, and the sudden insight into the world’s lawfulness after hard work on the other. When considering aesthetics as practice in the science classroom, teachers can foster their students’ sense of the beauty of those living phenomena which revive, stimulate, and structure the lesson. To facilitate experiences of sensuous beauty is and should be a vital part of any teaching about the world around us. Emphasizing such beauty is at once important to foster students’
sense of belonging and care, both of which are crucial elements in education towards sustainability.
Third, the perhaps most radical educational implication of Müller’s exploration is art as a challenge – to science’ monopoly of knowledge of the world and to science teachers’ self-evident conception of their subject as pure knowledge, with a higher validity compared to other forms of knowing. Art is more than a means to achieve scientific knowledge, more than “icing on the cake” when incorporated into school science. The artists’ and musicians’ ways of knowing represent genuine accesses to the world. Aesthetic forms of knowing can complement scientific knowledge; yes, art might also chal- lenge the conception of a scientifically idealized world that is mistaken for the everyday world. At its best, art provides access to phenomena as they appear in everyday experience. At its most radical, art exposes science’ underlying assumptions, both ontological and epistemological, with the intention “to restore ways of knowing the world to ways of being in it” (Ingold, 2020, p. 437). To foster a fruitful in-
tegration of art, aesthetic experience and conceptual understanding in science teaching requires that the ontological primacy of the perceptual lifeworld replaces that of abstract scientific models (Dahlin, Østergaard & Hugo, 2009). It is an educational task to facilitate students’ encountering with beautiful appearances and not waiting and hoping for advanced students’ capability to grasp the beauty of what is behind those appearances.
As a final note, the book is written in German which, in some sense, restricts its audience. On the other hand, it fills in a big gap in the literature for readers – both science teachers and science teacher educators – whose interests lie in the history and philosophy of science with a focus on art-science affinities. Müller’s book draws partly on the German philosophical and scientific tradition, however, without restricting the discussion to them. It is valuable and appropriate to raise awareness about these perspectives for a broader non-German audience.
Zu schön, um falsch zu sein is a well-documented elaboration on curious explorers at work. Its wide scope to the barely researched field of art-science encounters corresponds to the variety of potential overlappings between artistic and scientific work. The book is well written, although Müller’s some- what individualistic language takes over from time to time. Whereas his personal style of writing enhances the reading of the book significantly, the text’s occasionally flowery language is in danger of polishing off the sharpness of its argument. Nevertheless, Olaf Müller examines issues which are essential to those who’s interest lies in exploring the numerous relationships between aesthetic judge- ment and appreciation and scientific, systematic inquiry. The book is highly recommended.
REFERENCES
Colucci-Gray, L. & Burnard, P. (2020). Why Science and Art Creativities Matter: (Re-)Configuring STEAM for Future-making Education. Leiden: Brill | Sense. doi: 10.1163/9789004421585 Dahlin, B., Østergaard, E. & Hugo, A. (2009). An Argument for Reversing the Bases of Science Education - A Phenomenological Alternative to Cognitionism. NorDiNa, 5(2), 201-215. doi:
10.5617/nordina.350
Dijkgraaf, R. (2019). Truth and beauty: the role of aesthetics in mathematics and physics. Architec- tural Design, 89(5), 20-25. doi: 10.1002/ad.2474
Flannery, M. (1992). Using science’s aesthetic dimension in teaching science. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 26(1), 1-15. doi: 10.2307/3332723
Girod, M. (2007). A conceptual overview of the role of beauty and aesthetics in science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 38–61 doi: 10.1080/03057260708560226 Girod, M., Rau, C. & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: teaching for
aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87(4), 574-587. doi: 10.1002/sce.1054
Harvey, C. W. (1989). Husserl’s Phenomenology and the Foundations of Natural Science. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. D.
Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ingold, T. (2020). What knowledge do we need for future-making education? In Colucci-Gray, L.
& Burnard, P. (Eds). Why Science and Art Creativities Matter: (Re-)Configuring STEAM for Future-making Education, 432-439. Leiden: Brill | Sense. doi: 10.1163/9789004421585_024 Lachenmann, H. (2004). “Hören ist wehrlos – ohne Hören“. In Josef Häusler (Ed.) Helmut Lachen-
mann, Musik als existentielle Erfahrung, 116–135. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Østergaard, E. (2017). Only beauty? Aspects of an aesthetic-sensitive science education. Paper presented at ESERA conference, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, August 2017. Re- trieved May 8. 2020 from https://keynote.conference-services.net/resources/444/5233/pdf/
ESERA2017_0601_paper.pdf
Østergaard, E. (2019). The attentive ear. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 53(4), 49-70. doi:
10.5406/jaesteduc.53.4.0049
Pugh, K. J. & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 9-27. doi: 10.1007/s10972- 006-9029-0
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2002). Aesthetic cognition. International Studies in the Philosophy of Sci- ence, 16(1), 61-77. doi: 10.1080/02698590120118837
Roth, W.-M. (2015). Enracinement or the earth, the originary ark, does not move: on the phenom- enological (historical and ontogenetic) origin of common and scientific sense and the genetic method of teaching (for) understanding. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 469–
494. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9606-z
Shubnikov, A. V., & Koptsik, V. A. (1974). Symmetry in Science and Art. Plenum Press: New York.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2067-8_12
Weinberg, S. (1992). Dreams of a Final Theory. Pantheon Book: New York.
Wickman, P.- O. (2006). Aesthetic Experience in Science Education: Learning and Meaning- Making as Situated Talk and Action. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. doi:
10.4324/9781410615756