Linda Francis/ The problem is language. We have more or less agreed upon it. So do we parse the structure of scientific method and then do we measure art by it? Or Taney, apropos of “reason” – How do we have a meta- discussion of meaning in the language of art or science -It strikes me that there is no other way but to reason together, or alternately, produce work together that is critical in and of the genre in which it is operating. It brings us back to the necessity of fluency in each language. Perhaps the example that Elaine uses re: scientific thought and evidence taking a back seat to – knowledge? In any case, I think there is some problem in what art is doing with itself too. Is it able to discover new things or is it hampered by its own conventions? How can we use it ? I recently forced a chapter of the Audubon Society to cease its abuse of its mandate to conserve birds, habitat and wildlife. I didn’t choose to take action through art because I couldn’t effect the outcome in the real world with those tools. I did use what science I could to make the case but in the long run it was just as useless. I sadly had to resort to legal means and matters of property rights. We want to make contributions, we think art and science are civilizing forces, but how to make them do work together in this culture?