Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T19:16:31.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory, Observation, and the Role of Scientific Understanding in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Glenn Parsons
Glenn Parsons*
Affiliation:
Ryerson University Toronto, ON M5B 2K3 Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much recent discussion in the aesthetics of nature has focused on Scientific cognitivism, the view that in order to engage in a deep and appropriate aesthetic appreciation of nature, one must possess certain kinds of scientific knowledge. The most pressing difficulty faced by this view is an apparent tension between the very notion of aesthetic appreciation and the nature of scientific knowledge. In this essay, I describe this difficulty, trace some of its roots and argue that attempts to dismiss it fail. I then develop a response to the problem, drawing on the notion of the theory-ladenness of observation. I conclude by considering the relationship between this response and one common approach to the problem, the appeal to expressive qualities in nature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 165 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, C. 1958. Art. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons [1913].Google Scholar
Brewer, W. and Lambert, B.. 2001. ‘The Theory-Ladenness of Observation and the Theory-Ladenness of the Rest of the Scientific Process.’ Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 68 S176–86.Google Scholar
Budd, M. 2002. The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: Essays on the Aesthetics of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University.Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. 1977. ‘On the Possibility of Quantifying Scenic Beauty.’ Landscape Planning 4 131–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, A. 1995. ‘Nature, Aesthetic Appreciation, and Knowledge.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, A. 2000. Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. 1993. ‘On Being Moved by Nature: Between Religion and Natural History.’ In Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts, Kemal, S. and Gaskel, I. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. 1979. Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. 1988. ‘Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor.’ Philosophy of Science 55 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comfort, N. 2001. The Tangled Field: Barbara McClintock's Searchfor the Patterns of Genetic Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
DesAutels, P. 1995. ‘Two Types of Theories: the Impact on Churchland's “Perceptual Plasticity”.’ Phüosophical Psychology 8 25–33.Google Scholar
Dickie, G. 1974. Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University.Press.Google Scholar
Eaton, M. 1998. ‘Fact and Fiction in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature.’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1984. ‘Observation Reconsidered.’ Philosophy of Science 51 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1988. ‘A Reply to Churchland's “Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality”.’ Philosophy of Science 55 188–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C. 1998. ‘The Narrative and the Ambient in Environmental Aesthetics.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Keller, E. 1983. A Feelingfor the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company [1998].Google Scholar
Gilman, D. 1992. ‘What's a Theory to do… With Seeing? Or Some Empirical Considerations for Observation and Theory.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabo, C. 1968. Newton AmongPoets: Shelley 's Use of Science in Prometheus Unbound. New York: Cooper Square Publishing.Google Scholar
Hanson, N.R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, R. 1996. ‘Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination.’ Environmental Values 5 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyd, T. 2001. ‘Aesthetic Appreciation and the Many Stories About Nature.’ British Journal of Aesthetics 41125-37.Google Scholar
Hospers, J. 1946. Meaning and Truth in the Arts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Howarth, J. 1995. ‘Nature's Moods.’ British Journal of Aesthetics 35 108–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieran, M. 2001. ‘Value of Art.’ In The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. Gaut, B. and Lopes, D. Mclver eds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lintott, S. 2004. ‘Adjudicating the Debate Over Two Models of Nature Appreciation.’ Journal of Aesthetic Education 38 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. 2001. ‘Aesthetic Appreciation of Art and Nature.’ British Journal of Aesthetics 41 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. 1999. ‘Appreciating Natural Beauty as Natural.’ The Journal of Aesthetic Education 33 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, G. 2002. ‘Nature Appreciation, Science, and Positive Aesthetics.’ British Journal of Aesthetics 42 279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, G. and Carlson, A.. 2004. ‘New Formalism and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C.S. 1897. ‘Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs.’ In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, Buchler, J.. New York: Dover [1955].Google Scholar
Plato, . 1994. Republic. Transl. Waterfield, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poe, E.A. 1845. ‘Sonnet — To Science.’ In The Norton Anthology of American Literature, 3rd ed. N. Baym et al., eds. New York: W.W. Norton & Company [1989].Google Scholar
Rolston III, H. 1995. ‘Does Aesthetic Appreciation of Landscapes Need to be Science-Based?’ British Journal of Aesthetics 35 374–86.Google Scholar
Saito, Y. 1998a. ‘Appreciating Nature on its Own Terms.’ Environmental Ethics 20 135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, Y. 1998b. ‘The Aesthetics of Unscenic Nature.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santayana, G. 1896. The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outline of Aesthetic Theory. New York: Dover [1955].Google Scholar
Walton, K. 1970. ‘Categories of Art.’ Philosophical Review 79 334–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. 1968. The Double Helix: A Personal Account ofthe Discovery ofthe Structure of DNA. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W. 1798. ‘The Tables Turned.’ In English Romantic Writers, Perkins, D. ed. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [1967].Google Scholar
Zangwill, N. 2001. ‘Formal Natural Beauty.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 21 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar