Science as Art.

mbpi at mbpi at
Mon Jan 14 11:40:47 EST 2002

I'd like to put in my two-cents worth on "science as an art..." 

As a born and trained "artist" in my own right (with innumerable
credentials and awards to back me up), I find that I perceive the world
quite differently from the mainstream, strictly "scientific" populus that
predominates research.  And I also can attest that my perceptions are
largely "ignored" by the aforementioned, as if they have no "relevance,"
regardless of the fact that I'm a trained biologist, as well...

As an example:  the current thread on the "blue-green" droplets present
on Pierids during relaxing and/or spreading the individuals...  I
suggested to the original poster (Rich Worth), that the droplets were
probably "urea" which is the color pigmentation found in Pierids.  Nobody
else has suggested this as a source, and Rich chose to ignore my
suggestion.  After spending the summer watching quite a number of Pierids
eclose, the blue-green droplets that are present on the wings can be
observed on recently emerged Pierids before their wings dry out.  Couple
the urea with the chlorophyl consumed from the plant vegetation by the
larvae, you have a pretty credible supposition!  (Perhaps some graduate
student should delve into this further...)

Another interesting case in point:  there was an article in the Chicago
Tribune Magazine a couple of weeks ago that showcased an "artist"
(thought untrained in Biology), who has spent the past 10 years studying
"maneless" lions in Africa...and is only now being allowed to publish his
observations in a scientific journal...thanks to the "skeptical"
scientific community.

What a biased, elitist world we live in! 

M.B. Prondzinski

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:13:47 -0600 Martin Bailey <cmbb at>
> It was mentioned that it is just as important to creatively analysis 
> data as
> it is to gather it and put it through a canned statistical software 
> program.
> I agree.  But what I find ludicrous is that the original data is 
> rarely
> independently verified as to have been accurately observed.
> So you presently have the situation where one researcher with 
> limited
> observational skills making a hundred observations or so which are 
> then
> analyzed using some statistical procedure or another and are deemed
> significant. Results that are now considered publishable in some 
> learned
> journal.
> On the other hand, three long time observers note the same 
> phenomenon
> independently of each other in three separate locations and their 
> results
> are just seen as anecdotal - not worthy of learned consideration.  
> (They are
> not statistically significant.)
> Martin Bailey,
> greetings from:  Weyburn, SK., Canada.
>                          49.39N  103.51W
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list