Key words: anesthetizing, scientific anesthetizing; function of scientific anesthetizing
As to science, scientific anesthetizing has more huge function than people expect. From outside, scientific aesthetizing not only offers great motivation for the scientists to make scientific inquiries, but also the link and bridge of scientific culture and humane culture. From inside (as much scientific theory), scientific aesthetizing is an indispensable power to drive scientific development, which is the breakthrough in scientific invention and the touchstone of the evaluation of scientific theories.
At the beginning of modern science, N. Copernicus regarded the scientist’s aesthetizing to nature and science as research drive: “In the field of many cultures and arts created by human wisdom, I thought the most intense sentiment and extreme zealous must be used to promotes the research which is finest, most worth understanding. Is where anything else much more pretty than the heaven including all nice stuff?” And he said that there was no doubt that astronomy was the peak of all academic areas and was the encouragement research for human to engage. (Copernicus 1992, p.1-2) Poincaré paid close attention to aesthetizing, he declared beyond the shadow of a doubt:
The Scientists does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not knowing, life would not be worth living. (Poincaré 1913)
He said subsequently: “It is because simplicity, because grandeur, is beautiful, that we preferably seek simple fact, sublime fact; that we delight now to follow the majestic course of the stars, now to examine with the microscope that prodigious littleness which is also a grandeur, now to seek in geologic time the traces of a past which attracts because it is far away.” (Poincaré 1913, p.366-367) In Poincaré’s opinion, the scientific beautiful, as same as natural beauty, is a reason of scientist to pursue science. “It is when it discloses to us this harmony that science is beautiful and so worthy to be cultivated.” (p.538) He explained it by taking mathematics as the example: “Mathematics has a triple aim. It must furnish an instrument for the study of nature. But that is not all: it has a philosophic aim and, I dare maintain, an esthetic aim. It must aid the philosopher to fathom the notions of number, of space, of time. And above all, its adepts find therein delights analogous to those given by painting and music. They admire the delicate harmony of number and forms; they marvel when a new discovery opens to them an unexpected perspectives; and has not the joy they thus feel the esthetic character, even though the senses take no part therein? Only a privileged few are called to enjoy it fully, it is true, but is not this the case for all the noblest arts? ” For this reason, “mathematics deserves to be cultivated for its own sake, and the theories inapplicable to physics as well as the others.” (p.280)
As for the famous scientist, it is not a special case that they look on scientific aesthetizing as the motive of scientific discovery, and is a universal phenomenon. For example, Pearson speaks frankly: “It is this continual gratification of the aesthetic judgment which is one of the chief delights of the pursuit of pure science.” (Pearson 1892, p.43) Einstein (1977, p.103) thinks: “To long for seeing the pre-stable harmony is the source of infinite willpower and patience.” Hilbert (in his memorial Hermann Minkowski) lectured in very poetic languages: “Our Science, which we loved above everything, had brought as together. It appeared to us as a flowering garden. In this garden there were well-worn paths where one might look around at leisure and enjoy oneself without effort, especially at the side of a congenial companion. But we also liked to seek out hidden trains and discovered many an unexpected view which was pleasing to our eyes; and when the one pointed it out to the other, and we admitted it together, our joy was complete.”(Chandrasekhar 1995, p.52) The fact indicated that scientists feel the esthetic sense frequently when they are engaged in the scientific creation, in general, this kind of esthetic sense enhances people's creation will as usual, promotes to explore the truth. The science esthetic factors play a vital role in improving the creation enthusiasm of scientists. In fact, the seeking of esthetic sense and joyful always affects and stimulates mathematical development. Intentionally or not, mathematician always chooses the esthetic sense questions from a big pile of subjects and patterns. In the genuine mathematician's mind, the desire of their thirst for esthetic sense is stronger than the desire of shrew that wants to quarrels.
Scientific aesthetizing is also one kind of link or the bridge, which may make up two cultural fissures. Scientific aesthetizing bestow science on some cultural status and value, the human nature factor and human touch. Von Goethe already expressed: “ Nowhere would anyone grant that science and poetry can be united. They forgot that science arose from poetry, and did not see that when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends.” The scientist, just as the poet, draws upon the same aesthetic resources as a primary component of his experience. The aesthetic in this sense may serve as a crucial faculty of re-integrating experience. In short, the aesthetic dimension may be the bridge that unifies the objective, qua scientific, with the subjective, qua personal, thus closes two cultural fissions and our disassociation of personality. (Tauber 1997, p.404) Especially in the creative time, the boundary between the science and the artistic dispelled. Esthetics becomes very important. As to Einstein, just likes Copernicus and Galileo in those days, they looked on esthetics as data. Chandler explained this question by the relations of which the beauty represents art truth represent science:
There are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. 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. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.
Indeed, both human efforts can be united around the truth in the endeavor to find beauty. Aesthetics without science is useless and science without aesthetics has no value. Science with aesthetics can be of value. ( Fischer 1999, p.181)
A dichotomy exists in the science between those like Bohr who assume that their starting point and base of verification is sense perception, and those, like Heisenberg, who believe that sense perception is an unnecessary limitation. Such a case is the contrast between Hertz and Mach: Hertz advocated a purely intellectual process in his “pure natural science”, while Mach believed “every statement in physics has to state relations between observable quantity”. Both pure science and science related observation are subject to aesthetic judgment. The esthetics of pure relations engages our minds as music does through harmonic relationships. Intuition as well as esthetic judgments operate in both approaches to science. Moreover the role of cognitive mode and aesthetic sensibility plays a vital part in the structure and style of the scientific process. And aesthetics is presented in this collection as a mode of cognition which focuses on forms and metaphor used in scientific conceptualizing and modeling. (Wechsler 1978, pp.2, 6) No matter how, the scientific aesthetic function manifests mainly in two aspects in which one is scientific invention, other is scientific evaluation.
The scientific aesthetizing plays a pivotal role in science invention or scientific discovery. Scientific theory object expresses the harmony discovering in nature, therefore this tempts people to accept thing that satisfy the aesthetizing judgment as science, which results cannot often cause the scientist to be deceived too. In particular, in the emerging instant of new scientific concept and the principle, the unconsciousness aesthetizing connoisseurship and the aesthetizing choice are even decisive. In summary, scientific aesthetizing is the breach of scientific invention or scientific discovery. Furthermore, the epoch-making scientific invention causes the scientific revolution very possibly. Therefore the scientific aesthetizing has also the indissoluble bond with the scientific revolution.
Switzerland zoologist and cultural philosopher A. Portnann reminded us that alongside highly praised rational thought and its ability for scientific analysis, which he summarized as the “theoretical function” of humanity, there was also the “aesthetic function” as its complementary counterpart”, which he described as having to do with the impression of the senses, with perception. The aesthetic function is much better at providing the “basis of human behavior” than the theoretical function. He said: “Real though, productive thought even in the most exacting areas of research needs the intuitive, spontaneously creative to work; The aesthetic function, dreams, waking dreams, and all sensory experiences open up inestimable possibilities.” Fischer also pointed out, when the rationality runs up against its limits and recourse to enlightened reason is no help any more, then it may help if we become conscious of our given human ability that serves as a counterpoint to thinking -- feeling. Feeling is released through our senses; they help us to perceive the world and recognize value. (Fischer 1999, pp.168, 179) Here called feeling mainly has reference to scientific anesthetizing sense.
The scientist has sincere experience about it. When they talk about own and other’s work, they always use terminologies words “beauty”, “elegance”, “economy”, “simplicity” which frequently praise painting, music, poetry, or send out the exclamation of recognition which follow to discovery a connection of art and science, or realize that we have not expect but entirely accurate thing. Reality is nearly caught like magic, which is not the explicit expression for the reality and had not realized before. For example, Kepler discovered the new mathematical formalism through extremely observational data about planetary motion. This kind of relational beauty guided him to propose three laws effectively by his name. In the ending of Cosmos Harmony , he suddenly cheers: Thanks to God, the Creator of us, who presents beauty to us in His creatures. Maxwell has unique insight in the research electrodynamics, he sees clearly the electrodynamics equation so long as attaches one item, it becomes quite symmetrical, moreover this item extremely small, compares with old method, which cannot have the influence which may observe. He immersed the feeling of mathematical symmetry or mathematical analogy at that time, namely immersed in mathematic beauty, but his transcendental procedure was confirmed after 20 years, which made him be outstanding in the mathematical physics.
Why can scientific aesthetizing become the breach of scientific discovery? Poincaré，as the mathematical leader at the end of 19 century and in the beginning of 20 century, has give a penetrating explanation. He said, mathematical creation does not consist in making new combinations with mathematical entities already known. Any one could to that, but the combinations so made would be infinite in number and most of them absolutely without interest. To create consists precisely in not making useless and in making these which are useful and which are only a small minority. The useful combinations are precisely the most beautiful and mean those best able to charm this special sensibility that all mathematicians know. Invention is discernment, choice. After consciously self drive unconscious self, unconscious self or subliminal self often combine remote elements together and capture by the feeling of anesthetizing, which plays the breakthrough role in mathematical creation.
Among the great numbers of combinations blindly formed by the subliminal self, almost all are without interest and without utility; but just for that reason they are also without effect upon the esthetic sensibility. Consciousness will never know them; only certain ones are harmonious, and, consequently, at once useful and beautiful. They will be capable of touching this special sensibility of the geometer of which I have just spoken, and which, once aroused, will call our attention to them, and thus give them occasion to become conscious… Thus it is this special sensibility which plays the role of the delicate sieve of which I spoke, and that sufficiently explain why the one lacking it will never be a real creator. (Poincaré 1913, pp386, 392)
Poincaré’s conclusion is not fabricated. He concluded the automorphic function from his own invention. He gave a very vivid description to mental process of invention. Many scientists and scholar's views are linking to Poincaré’s description and thought. American mathematician Papert integrates mathematical beauty, mathematical pleasant sensation, and mathematical intuition to mathematics. As to him not seek help from esthetics in the logical terminology cannot understand mathematical activity, which should become the basic principle of mathematical creation theory. Mathematical research is not marches forward along the smooth way, swampy ground is very possible, only the introduction esthetics sensitivity, the mathematician can get rid of the fixed admission passage (Luke 1986). Scientific historian A. I. Miller believed that, scientific invention is published as the great artistic work, music work and the literary works, which also fills the aesthetic factor. Because invention is the choice useful combination, such choice depends on aesthetic and the intuition. These discipline boundaries often vanished in the creation time. (Miller 1988)
A Russian author receives influence from Poincaré about the invention automorphic function mechanism inspiration, which has discussed the science creation aesthetic mechanism. As to him, the invention process (scientific discovery) has four stages: The preparation, the fermentation (mature), the comprehension (enlightenment) and completes. The first and the fourth stages are conscious activity, and the second and the third stages are psychological unconscious ingredient. Perfect rational and the accumulation knowledge are under conscious control. They not only promote comprehension, but also hindrance comprehension. The promotion causes the attention to concentrate on the following three aspects: questions studied, collects material and the difficulty in material understanding. The hindrance lies in: ingrained idea; mechanical thinking mode lead human to the wrong direction unconsciously; steps the common knowledge path again, but the original duty is to open a new way. Introspection or invention breaks conventional ideas, whose archenemy is custom thinking mode. Once the ingredient of thought drops consciously or vanishes completely, comprehension arises spontaneously. That is because, creative thought is a kind of image thinking without words, which does not need such standardization mark like language and has the enormous flexibility. It very easy to link up distanced factor together. More important is that invention is choice, what carries on the unconsciously choice is scientific aesthetizing sense. Therefore, the unconsciousness ingredient in researcher's psychology and the aesthetic factor in researcher’s though are close correlation. Creation is the product of beauty. Every creative act belongs to beauty in essentially. In order to provide evidence to viewpoint which invention is unconscious aesthetizing, this author has quoted some great philosopher’s opinions. For example, although Leibniz called unconsciousness perception the tiny perception, he thought its function is very big. This kind of consciousness has formed habit and the anesthetizing ability, which make our psychological activity not easy to realize, but it is actually reliable foundation. Kant has even said: Rationality functions primary in an implicit way; and unconsciousness is the midwife of thoughts. (Guxuejia 1981)
Why unconsciousness anesthetizing develops unprecedented function in scientific invention? Plato's explanation is: the soul feels the awe trembles when it sees beautiful thing, because it felt something be aroused, which is not gave from the exterior sense organ, but which is already continuously places in the deep unconsciousness boundary territory. R. Penrose acknowledged frankly that creative mental penetrates Plato's kingdom and glimpse the beautiful mathematical form in some aspects. Anesthetizing can be looked on as the guiding principle in many mathematical works. He says: Rigorous arguments usually are the final step; and before this step, people have to make many guesses, to which anesthetizing is really significant. (Davis 1992, pp.176-177)
Plato as well as Kepler, Pauli, Penrose all based on priority, but he has promulgated the secret of creative psychology. Maslow’s peak experience perhaps can turn on the modern key of this labyrinth, although more or less which has some kinds of trace of Plato thought. Scientists often enter the peak experience condition in the deep aesthetic experience, people can face directly reality itself in this time, see clearly the real face of unified reality. In the peak experiencing of scientific aesthetic, aesthetic feeling, as evinced by the loss of self in the object of study must then be the apogee of scientific creativity, for it is precisely this merging of subjective and objective knowledge to yield understanding that is described by so many of the greatest men and women of science as the most memorable aspect of their work. Somehow, external stimuli must set up internal resonance that that amplify and purify perception. Consider, for example the physicist W. Pauli commenting on the influence of archetypal or psychologically innate ideas that well up from inside the soul of the scientist:
The bridge, leading from the initially unordered data of experience to the ideas, consists in certain primeval images pre-existing in the soul -- the archetypes of Kepler. These primeval images should not be located in consciousness or related to specific rationally formulizable ideas. It is a question, rather, of forms belonging to the unconscious region of the human soul, images of powerful emotional content, which are not thought, beheld, as it were, pictorially. The delight one feels, on becoming aware of a new piece of knowledge, arises from the way such preexisting images fall into congruence with the behavior of the external objects.
In short, Pauli espouses the view that, that which we know innately or subjectively and that which we know objectively and externally must be melded to yield understanding. Therefore, science must look simultaneously inward to the mind-soul and outward to the universe and find harmony. in the juxtaposition to be aesthetically satisfied. It is only thus that we can understand the importance of Einstein’s remark that, “I am a little piece of nature”, or Planck's criterion of acceptable and satisfying science could be summarized by the single phrase, “Only when I have convinced myself”. That which id true is what satisfied me when I have struggled with it, interrogated it, and pondered the meanings of its answers in light of my experience, my existence, myself. I become what I study, and when the I and it merge, understanding has been achieved. But because that understanding is inextricably personal, it is also fallible. (Root-Bernstein 1996, pp.68-69)
The same understanding of Pauli and what we mentioned while discussing the aesthetic one is comprehensive, in coordination with consciousness, unite feeling or the design consciousness of crossing, knowing comprehensively, the experience of aesthetic summit play an important role in science. This can be found out from the following statement at one glance: The rational attitude of science makes people in main object two points of understanding relations. The aesthetic attitude makes people in the main object thing relation that I blend. In aesthetic activity, various spiritual ability of people's sense consciousness, emotion, imagines, intuition and reason, blend together organically, stand up actively, therefore enable examining aesthetic understanding and knowing to become a kind of perceptibility that specially melts of people actively. Though it does not break away from the perceptual field, it incorporates people's reason at the same time. What this made the aesthetic perceptual is different from the perceptual in epistemological meaning. In the aesthetic state, the subject is in perceptual and reason, knowing and spiritual integration state imagining strength unified. The integration course does not rise to abstract concept to win a certain knowledge representation of Chaos, but demonstrate a new world mode, the ones that showed the possible and hope from the synchronized of the world in aesthetic appraisal in the thing mine. (Xu 1997, pp.93-95)
