|
It would be perfectly normal for anyone studying art history to accept the fact that from the earliest of days it was the artists who made the scientific discoveries and inventions that produced artistic outcomes relating to crafts, painting, sculpture and even architecture.
Even the pre-artist craftsmen, who devised jewellery and cast weaponry, were knowledgeable chemists and geologists. Later artists were involved in all fields of scientific research and invention, including the eventual involvement with chemistry, medicine, anatomy, biology, mechanics and all kinds of technology. Only in late nineteenth century did artists relinquish their scientific involvement to so-called scientists, because the business of mass-produced art supplies fulfilled their needs.
But just because most current artists maintain little interest in science, there are humans in various walks of life who consider that acquisition of knowledge is part of their life, irrespective of their other endeavours in life. This means that those involved with science are not exclusively gifted or knowledgeable to make scientific discoveries and become instrumental in formulating principles that provide explanations of all physical existence.
Knowing humanity as I do, I am aware that there will be many of those in science who shall attempt to diminish or dismiss the knowledge presented in Existence: what it is and what we think it is, simply because my attainment of knowledge has been from outside any scientific community. But for those who may presume to cast a lack of credibility on any knowledge presented in Existence: what it is and what we think it is, they would need to prove that information to be wrong: something that would be harder than they think, because it is all based on indisputable physical existence and reality.
As to my personal consideration of life, I would not have complained if it were to be longer. It may not have been perfect, as I have failed to achieve all that I had intended, but for all that it was wonderful.
|
|