How does science define beauty?

Beauty is in the mind of the beholder and it was ever thus.

I do not believe there is a scientific explanation. Few people would agree with an explanation that likely contradicts their thinking.   .,,, Thinkpads_User

Why would science have to explain beauty?  I fail to see the connection.
BTW, I like camping at the beach.

Har! Me too.

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=14661
"Participants showed the most positive response to simple, balanced shapes and patterns. This suggests ease of mental processing contributes to human attraction."

Science has made some strides to try to explain beauty, but I still do not understand the point of the question.  What exactly are you trying to get to from this question?

I want to know from people who maintain that if it cannot be proven or defined scientifically then it doesnt exist ( eg, miracles ) how they explain beauty, love, certain types of preferences .  .  .

I am not certain what you are after here. The first line of my first post way back satisfies just about everyone I know. There is no scientific definition of beauty that I can find.

Since you want it, find it and please give us a reference. ... Thinkpads_User

My PC does things that your PC doesn't do. A PC is a 'container' into which some extremely high number of capabilities can be placed. And different PCs have variations in their innate capabilities.

One human feels things (perceives things) differently than another human does. Humans are 'containers' into which an extremely high number of experiences have been placed. From the very beginning of each human, a different unique genetic 'shape' makes a particular human 'container' capable of holding different things in ways that are different from any other human.

Beauty is subjective. It arises from the unique shape and content of each individual human 'container'.

The subjective nature of beauty is why "Beauty is in the mind of the beholder and it was ever thus." Subjectivity results in individual definitions.

We might as well attempt to define "a handful of sand" and then to ensure that every handful is the same as every other one. It ain't gonna happen.

Just IMO.

...if it cannot be proven or defined scientifically then it doesnt exist ( eg, miracles )...

Can cite actual examples of such people? I'm not aware of any.

But I think the wording there isn't quite. What I've seen isn't that "it doesn't exist", but rather that "it isn't scientific". Those are very different things.

Now, that's not to say that aren't people who don't believe that miracles exist. It also isn't saying that some/many of those people have no reasons other than absence of 'scientific' evidence. I'm only saying that the most common stand that I've seen concerns whether or not a thing ( eg, miracles ) can be considered in a 'scientific' framework, and not whether it's 'true' or 'false'. And the most common thing I've seen discussed in recent years in that way is the comparison of evolution and creationism (or 'Intelligent Design' or whatever it is now).

Tom

>>I want to know from people who maintain that if it cannot be proven or defined scientifically then it doesnt exist

I' not sure I have ever met or heard of anyone who believs that.

I have, just dont want to name names

>>> I want to know from people who maintain that if <<< it >>> cannot be proven or defined scientifically then <<< it >>> doesnt exist ???? ( eg, miracles ) how they explain beauty, love, certain types of preferences .  .  .

Could you please write this grammatically corrected and not convoluted so we can understand it.

And then, can you please provide references to this "scientific basis" for beauty.

I am on record here as saying no such "scientific basis" exists.

Thanks, ... Thinkpads_User

From http://www.phrases.org.uk

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"   This saying first appeared in the 3rd century BC in Greek. It didn't appear in its current form in print until the 19th century

So people have define beauty without science for hundreds of years. I still cannot find any scientific definition.

... Thinkpads_User

Thinkpads_User .  .  . I have heard people say that if it cannot be proven scientifically then it cannot exist. I want to hear from those people and I want to hear how they explain beauty and love.

SteveJ - I do wish you would use ordinary grammar properly. What is "it" twice? and what "cannot exist"? What does not exist?

Please try to restate the above sentence correctly (say what "it" means and say what cannot exist).

Thank you, ... Thinkpads_User

"It" is the subject if the sentence. Im guessing that from your difficulty understanding me English is not your first language.

The question is both clear and grammatically correct. Concern yourself less with my wording and try to figure out whether you want to post your thoughts or comment solely in my literary style.

Steve

Whatever. So do you use multiple Thinkpads? Sorry, couldnt resist.

That which cannot be explained scientifically cannot exist. i have heard that expressed on this forum.

Please dont ask me what "that" refers to, Thinkpads_User. It will only reveal that which you likely dont want to reveal.

Unintentionally Condecending Steve

OK so here is what you are saying:

I have heard people say that if <How does science define beauty> (A)  cannot be proven scientifically then <How does science define beauty> (B) cannot exist. I want to hear from those people and I want to hear how they explain beauty and love.

So now that I have spent the time reconstructing your sentence, you are saying the you heard people (like me here) say that science cannot define beauty. (A)

So then you are saying (and herein lies the lack of clarity from only using the word "it" several times) that the science {to define beauty} (B) does not exist.  Did I get this right?

If I got this right, then you are hearing people say what I have said here:  There is no scientific explanation of beauty. So it is explanation that does not exist (at least in my opinion).

See some of my posts in Experts-Exchange and you should be able to conclude that English is indeed my native language.

... Thinkpads_User

>>That which cannot be explained scientifically cannot exist. i have heard that expressed on this forum.
>>I want to know from people who maintain that if it cannot be proven or defined scientifically then it doesnt exist ( eg, miracles ) how they explain beauty, love, certain types of preferences .

I think you are taking something out of context.  I remember some, IMO, really radical atheists who used to post and no longer do and I don't think even they would not have proposed this belief.  What you are writing above would be an extreme position to hold.
Science can't explain gravity, but I think most people would admit it exists.
Science can't prove that extraterrestrials exist, but I think most people would admit the possibility.
As I said, I don't believe many people hold these beliefs that you propose they do.

Beauty is the promise of happiness

To quote Stendhal.  To define beauty would need a definition of happiness.  I find pipes beautiful, concrete pillars holding up road, awkward people, determination fighting with doubt.  Those things offer me happiness in some way.

To describe happiness is to diminish it.

Stendhal again.  I don't think beauty needs to be defined by science.  I don't think its useful, or even possible.  Beauty is a concept no more absolute than fear, but just as real.

Jason210 . . .Thanks. That's what I was looking for . . . I wasn't asking the question rhetorically. That was an interesting link. And it contained another bizarre link: http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm

Tom . . . fair point. I was thinking that the only attempt at an explanation for love in scientific terms fell so short of describing the feeling that I've experienced that it seemed worthless at best. And I think "can't currently explain" fits better than "cannot" in the sense that "cannot" implies science has gone as far as it can go.

Thinkpads_User . . . Nope, you've still got it wrong. But thanks for tearing apart those sentences so ineffectively. You remind me of an English teacher I had in grade school (who was fired) who used to badger people about grammar when the grammar MAY have been incorrect but only a numbskull couldn't have figured out what was being said. Perhaps you think I am being harsh. Sorry. But I spar on this forum just like I spar in martial arts: soft blows are returned with soft blows.

"How does science define beauty?" Where's the problem with grammar in that questinon? What about that sentence confuses you? I would be interested in your response to about science and beauty, but your grammer nonsense just gives me tired head.

Yikes.

I gave you a little grammar gem to tickle your grammar fancy. Hint: it's in the paragraph that begins "How does . . . "

Steve

>>>> Thinkpads_User . . . Nope, you've still got it wrong.

Steve - How on earth can I have it wrong when all I did was to replace "it" "it" and "that" etc. with an interpretation that you have never clearly written down in one sentence (look back here).

>>>. "How does science define beauty?" Where's the problem with grammar in that question?  <-- that sentence is not an issue. It is just fine.

>>> I have heard people say that if it cannot be proven scientifically then it cannot exist.  <--- This is the meaningless sentence I have been referring to.

I am not stupid (>3,000,000 points in here), I am not a numskull, and I am more educated than most. My grammar is just fine.

Please write out a full sentence of what you mean with no "it" and no "that" and no references.

Then we can take it apart from there. This should tell me where I got it wrong (if, indeed, I did get it wrong).

For summary reference: My viewpoint is simple: Beauty is in the eye (mind) of the beholder. This viewpoint is centuries old. I cannot find any scientific definition of beauty and I believe that none exists (although probably someone is trying to invent one).

... Thinkpads_User

Although I don't know of any, I don't doubt that people exist who hold to the view that you're asking about. I'll be slightly disappointed if any respond to your question here in a serious fashion. I think they are in an extreme minority.

Tom

p.s. Yeah, I suppose it ought to be more like "...about which you are asking...",  but it just don't feel good. Ya' know?

##So now that I have spent the time reconstructing your sentence, you are saying the you heard people (like me here) say that science cannot define beauty. (A)##

No, I never said that I have heard people say that science cannot define beauty. I have read comments on this forum that question the validity of that which cannot be proved scientifically. So - for about the fourth time Ive told you this - I am asking "those people" how they would define beauty because I dont believe beauty can be defined scientifically yet I suspect "they" believe beauty exists.

Thinkpads_User, you seem like a nice guy / gal. Youve taken the trouble to pester me about grammar in an honest attempt (presumably) to understand what I am asking.  I wish youd expended that energy answering how you think science might explain beauty instead of getting wrapped around the axle over what appears to be a penchant for criticizing a writing style.

Good day, sir.

Steve

>>>> I wish youd expended that energy answering how you think science might explain beauty

I have said a number of times here very, very clearly that there is no scientific explanation of beauty that I have seen.

So I clicked on Stop Monitoring and I am gone.  Sorry to have bothered you.  ... Thinkpads_User

Once again I have ticked someone off to the point of abandoning monitoring.

I have the knack, dont I?

Glad to be of help. Thanks for the points :-)