"Is war a science or an art?" Topic

That is true of biology, painting, sculpting, acting, chemistry, physics, ecology, boxing, etc. etc. etc.
If you want to stick with the semantics of the question, then NOTHING is either an art or a science 'in itself.'

McLaddie,

I do not understand your comment. Maybe I have not explained well some arguments (English is not my native language).

Biology studies certain objects of study (living things and so on), Physics studies certain objects of study (matter, energy, their effects and so on). Biology is a science, but living things are not a science, they are objects of study. So, war may be an object of study, that is, something studied by a science. You may give name to this science (scientific community would establish a proper name for this new science). But war is not a science. It is logic and evident.

Regarding arts, an activity such as tying shoelaces may be artistically done, but tying shoelaces is not an art. Art involves following certain aesthetic principles. Art is basically: creativity, originality, communication, aesthetics, etc. The aim of all established arts is creating something following those principles. The aim of military procedures is to achieve certain results in order to win a conflict, usually a war, in the present, or in order to be ready for future conflicts. Military procedures may be artistically applied but their main aim, their reason for being, is not creating a work of art.

By the way, Rod and Ruchel are different members…

Ruchel:

Well, the language could be an issue. English can be irritatingly non-specific and sloppy.

Biology studies certain objects of study.

[italics mine]

Here are the three definitions of biology I have found:

**the plants and animals of a particular area.
"the biology of Chesapeake Bay"

**the physiology, behavior, and other qualities of a particular organism or class of organisms.
"human biology"

**the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.

The plants and animals of a certain area or the qualities of a particular organism are neither art or science any more than War is. They just are.

The third definition is an active one. THE STUDY OF… What makes something a science or art are the goals and methods of study and application. If one can 'study war and warfare' then it can be a science depending on the goals and methods of that study.

The one definition that I didn't find with my cursory look was how Biology is a collection and systematizing of scientific study. But then again, there is a collection and systematizing of the study of war and warfare.

Biology studies certain objects of study.

[italics mine]

Science is not a thing, it is an activity [study using particular methods] and its collective results over time. The same is true in the study of warfare.

Regarding arts, an activity such as tying shoelaces may be artistically done, but tying shoelaces is not an art. Art involves following certain aesthetic principles. Art is basically: creativity, originality, communication, aesthetics, etc. The aim of all established arts is creating something following those principles.

Tying shoelaces could never be an art? That is quite an absolute, forever statement. Someone could well apply all the 'principles' you outline and make tying shoelaces an art form. In the last several thousand years, how many common practices and products have been transformed into art?

Different 'established' arts have different principles and different methods…and being established isn't a criteria for something be art. See Sun Tzu's five principles in his Art of War.

Again, art is AN ACTIVITY, established principles or not. And if you believe that organizing an army, developing tactics, planning for battle and executing that plan can't involve and be guided by creativity, originality, communication and yes, aesthetics, then you really haven't read anything significant by military men in the last two thousand years or understand what they do.

Mcladdie,

Well, if you had read carefully all my previous posts, you would have noticed that I have been saying the same thing. So, I think we agree on this matter. Where are the disagreements?

Science is not a thing, it is an activity [study using particular methods] and its collective results over time. The same is true in the study of warfare.

I have written many times: for example, Biology studies living things (object of study), so a science may study warfare (object of study), but warfare is not a science. You are talking about ‘the study of warfare' (your own words), so you are talking about the study of something (the study of an object of study). So, warfare is something studied by a science. There is a difference between the subject who studies (the science) and the object which is studied (the object of scientific study).

Again and again, epistemologically speaking, there is a separation between observer and observed. It is a well-accepted principle of knowledge in western theory of sciences, because western point of view (or way of perception) about reality is basically dualist or dualistic. As an epistemologist, I can be critical of this way of thinking, but nowadays is still well-accepted by the academic and scientific community.

Tying shoelaces could never be an art? That is quite an absolute, forever statement. Someone could well apply all the 'principles' you outline and make tying shoelaces an art form. In the last several thousand years, how many common practices and products have been transformed into art?

Sorry, but any activity should not be considered an art. Everything which has been written by artists, theorists and aesthetic experts, during centuries, had (and has nowadays) the aim of defining the concept of art and the concept of work of art, precisely with the intention of differentiate art from other human activities. Thinking that everything can be considered an art is a sign of the irrational relativism of modern times.

Again, art is AN ACTIVITY, established principles or not. And if you believe that organizing an army, developing tactics, planning for battle and executing that plan can't involve and be guided by creativity, originality, communication and yes, aesthetics, then you really haven't read anything significant by military men in the last two thousand years or understand what they do.

You think that organizing an army, developing tactics, planning for battle and executing that plan can involve and can be guided by creativity, originality, communication and aesthetics.

Well, again, I think that you have not read carefully my previous posts. I have said many times that certain military procedures (strategies and tactics, and related things) may be artistically designed and applied. So we agree on this matter. But, again, war as a whole is many more than a set of military procedures.

An artist creates consciously something with the aim of creating a work of art, that is, it is its reason of being. So, creativity, originality, communication and aesthetics are the only reasons of being in a work of art. For example, those people who planned Operation Barbarossa were not thinking about creating a work of art as their main goal. The reason of being of Operation Barbarossa was not to become a work of art, but to win a war in order to conquest Russia.

War cannot be reduced to: organizing armies, developing tactics, planning battles. War is a complex matter. And war is the most devastating and unfortunate human tragedy. Thinking that war as a whole is an art, or a work of art, is an immorality and a monstrosity. It is aberrant.

Regarding Sun Tzu, it should be noted that the ancient eastern (oriental) concept of art is completely different from the current western one. That concept of art is nothing to do with the western one. It is a complex matter and it is another discussion.

Yes, Ruchel you are wrong.

As it has been shown by different posters here, war is both a science and an art.

If you cannot see or understand that, I cannot help you.

Brechtel,

You repeat your poor argument: 'you are wrong'. I think you can do better. You are a clever and educated person.

No, nobody has shown such statement because it is impossible to defend such absurdity.

No, I cannot understand that because I do not understand nonsenses.

And I do not need your help, but thank you. Furthermore, it is unlikely that you can help me because you have to learn a lot of things about this matter before. You have to do a lot of homework.

Again, I prefer constructive dicussions instead of useless conversations. Please, avoid worthless comments. They add nothing to this discussion.

Ruchel:
I recognize where we agree. Often TMP explanations focus on the area of disagreement…because they have to be explained.

So a science may study warfare

"A science" isn't a thing or an active agent. A person using scientific methods [a scientist] can study warfare.

So, when the question is asked if war is a science or an art, it can only mean what kind of activities dominate in warfare just as asking whether 'Biology' is a science or an art simply means what methods dominate in its study.

Biology doesn't study anything. "A science" simply refers to the parameters of the subject being studied… by scientists.

I think we have pretty much come to an impasse here.
You seem to want to see science and war as things in-and-of themselves. Such terms only have meaning in general reference to what people do and what methods they use. They don't exist or have meaning by themselves.

Regarding Sun Tzu, it should be noted that the ancient eastern (oriental) concept of art is completely different from the current western one. That concept of art is nothing to do with the western one. It is a complex matter and it is another discussion.

As someone who studied art history and Eastern art, I would love to know where you get that idea that the Western concept of art has nothing to do with ancient Eastern art. While the Eastern concept of art attached different meanings, spiritual and otherwise to the practice [just as Western cultures did], if asked to point out a piece of art, artists in both cultures at the time of Sun Tzu would have agreed on either one's choice as 'art.' Both western and eastern cultures at the time of Sun Tzu would have agreed on art as a particular set of activities and products. Hardly completely different.

Is the practice of medicine a science or an art?

Ask any experienced physician.

B

McLaddie,

You have said that a science is an activity. Yes, it is an activity whose aim is to study methodically something (an object of study).
And an object of study may be something or an activity. The scientific activity and the object of study are different, and they are in a different position, epistemologically speaking. When we say that a science studies something, we understand that the studies are carried out by subjects (scientists). We know it implicitly when we say that a science studies something. It is unnecesary to explain it, and this is not the matter of this topic.

War, an activity, may be a object of scientific study carried out by a science (an activity). Both are epistemologically different. Again, war does not study war. Scientific community may give name and specific procedures to a new science which studies war.

Again, Thinking that war is a science is an epistemological absurdity.

Again, thinking that war (the whole concept) is an art (or a work of art) is an immorality, a monstrosity and a thought of an insane mind. War is the most cruel, devastating and unfortunate human activity.

Regarding Sun Tzu and ancient eastern art, I was talking about the comparison with the modern concept of art in western culture, not at the time of Sun Tzu. Yes, 'both western and eastern cultures at the time of Sun Tzu would have agreed on art as a particular set of activities and products'.They would have only partially agreed. And this is the point: at the time of Sun Tzu. But nowadays the modern concept of art is nothing to do with the ancient concept and even less with the eastern one.

I think this debate shows that there is only one answer to the original question. "No!"

Mollinary

War, an activity, may be a object of scientific study carried out by a science (an activity). Both are epistemological different. Again, war does not study war. Scientific community may give name and specific procedures to a new science which studies war.

Ruchel:
I think we have come to an epistemological end here. Biology doesn't study Biology. Like Biology, the scientific community uses a variety of approaches [chemistry, psychology, ecology, physics etc., etc.] to study warfare.

Again, Thinking that war is a science is an epistemological absurdity.

I never suggested war was 'a science.' I repeat what I have said several times:

I never suggested war was a science. I questioned your use of science. I said that biology isn't "a science" anymore than war is. Biology is just life doing its thing. Science is what people do, just like war is what people do. Just like the scientific study of biology is what people do. Again I repeat. The question was poorly stated and I think it comes from history. Military men in the 1700s and 1800s spoke of "The Military Arts and Sciences". Machiavelli first used the title "The Art of War" and it was given to Sun Tzu's work in the 1780s when a better translation would be "Competitive Methods". Even so, War was revered as an art form by Sun Tzu and his contemporaries.

Regarding Sun Tzu and ancient eastern art, I was talking about the comparison with the modern concept of art in western culture, not at the time of Sun Tzu. They would have only partially agreed. And this is the point: at the time of Sun Tzu. But nowadays the modern concept of art is nothing to do with the ancient concept and even less with the eastern one.

"Nothing?" I disagree emphatically. I have no idea where you got that idea.

You repeat your poor argument: 'you are wrong'

That wasn't my argument. That was my conclusion, which stands based on the content of the thread.

From:

PDF link

SCIENCE, ART, AND DYNAMIC OF WAR

Various aspects of war fall principally in the realm of science, which is the methodical application of the empirical laws of nature. The science of war includes those activities directly subject to the laws of ballistics, mechanics, and like disciplines; for example, the application of fires, the effects of weapons, and the rates and methods of movement and resupply. However, science does not describe the whole phenomenon.

An even greater part of the conduct of war falls under the realm of art, which is the employment of creative or intuitive skills. Art includes the creative, situational application of scientific knowledge through judgment and experience, and so the art of war subsumes the science of war. The art of war requires the intuitive ability to grasp the essence of a unique military situation and the creative ability to devise a practical solution. It involves conceiving strategies and tactics and developing plans of action to suit a given situation. This still does not describe the whole phenomenon. Owing to the vagaries of human behavior and the countless other intangible factors which influence war, there is far more to its conduct than can be explained by art and science. Art and science stop short of explaining the fundamental dynamic of war.

As we have said, war is a social phenomenon. Its essential dynamic is the dynamic of competitive human interaction rather than the dynamic of art or science. Human beings interact with each other in ways that are fundamentally different from the way a scientist works with chemicals or formulas or the way an artist works with paints or musical notes. It is because of this dynamic of human interaction that fortitude, perseverance, boldness, esprit, and other traits not explainable by art or science are so essential in war. We thus conclude that the conduct of war is fundamentally a dynamic process of human competition requiring both the knowledge of science and the creativity of art but driven ultimately by the power of human will.

The authors recognize that science is used as a part of the study of war in those aspects of war which lend themselves to experimental and empirical analysis. They conclude:

The science of war includes those activities directly subject to the laws of ballistics, mechanics, and like disciplines; for example, the application of fires, the effects of weapons, and the rates and methods of movement and resupply. However, science does not describe the whole phenomenon.

This is a US Marine Corps publication from 1997.

Science and Art are components of the study and practice of war but but the converse is not true. War is neither a Science or an Art. It is to complex, disorderly and intangible to be either. It is a phenomenon unto itself and stands distinct from either science or art.

Rod Robertson.

Oh yes it is Mollinary !

"The science of war includes those activities"

Rod: It would seem the US Marines feel there is a science of war from your quote.

War is neither a Science or an Art. It is to complex, disorderly and intangible to be either. It is a phenomenon unto itself and stands distinct from either science or art.

You mean that only those simple, orderly and completely tangible things like the Biology and Physics, Astrophysics, Behavioral Sciences, Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory and Ecology etc. etc. can be sciences?

You need to get out more. The whole universe is filled with complex, disorderly and intangible phenomenon. If it wasn't, science and art would not be needed.

McLaddie:

I see I spelled "too" wrong and typed a double "but"! I must proof read better, apologies.

The phrase "the science of war" in this article is shorthand for 'the science component of war' as is made clear in the quoted citations above. There is science used in the study of some aspects of war. However the statement the "science of war" is not equivalent to "war is science". In a like manner art is used as a component in the study of war so there is room for the phrase "the art of war" but the converse "war is art" or "war is an art" does not hold true.

Biology uses both the scientific method and methods closer to the arts to accumulate its corpus of theory and facts. Taxonomy for example was traditionally more of an art than an empirical sub-discipline of Biology. Taxonomy was a descriptive study rather than an experimental one delivering up empirical data for analysis. This persisted for centuries until genetic testing and comparisson revolutionised taxonomy and shifted it more towards the empirical end of the academic spectrum. Similar arguments can be made for astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, quantum physics, etc.

The use of science in a field of study does not make the whole field of study into a science, nor does it transmute the topic being studied into science. War is a topic for study. Some aspects of war lend themselves to scientific study while other aspects are better studied through an liberal arts approach. That both art and science can be found as components of the study of a topic does not make that study-method science or art. And it most definitly does not make the topic (the object of the study) science or art.

The universe and its components do not exist as we know them. Our limited and flawed perception of the universe and its component parts coupled with our creative brains and neural network create our own reality. We impose that ficticous reality over those parts of the universe which we claim to understand, but that imposition is not truth nor true. In essence we create our own universe when we observe and attempt to understand it, but that is not what's really out there. The universe is a fiction created by us to make sense of our surroundings but what we create is not real. Even notions of space, time, space-time, matter, energy and separateness are fictions which we have created and project upon the universe like a heads-up display over everything we perceive and experience.

Knowing is just creating a more believable fiction. Knowledge is just a better picking of selective facts which bolster our fictional schema. Wisdom is understanding this and having the humility and caution to better comprehend our own biocentric limitations and delusions. Faith is the willingness to persist in an imperfect pursuit of knowledge in the hope that we can peel away the fictions of today and supplant them with the fictions of tomorrow. Destiny is that over eons of change/evolution and by the sequential tearing down and erecting of a long line of fictions (revision), our descendants will move ever closer to a less biocentric comprehension of the universe and its component parts.

War while created by organisms like human beings cannot be understood by human beings because we view it from a biocentric perspective which alters the phenomenon of war. We crawl around the edges of war with imperfect and limited perceptions and powerful preconceptions and we create a myth to explain the phenomenon, but we fail to grasp what it really is. One day we might, but we're not even close yet.

As for getting out enough, I do; perhaps too much.

Rod Robertson.

Oh no it isn't Michael Collins!

Did any of the people who participated – willingly or unwillingly – in wars throughout history actually care whether war (by which I presume is meant the practice of war) was an art or a science?

And does anyone – other than the principal debaters here – care?

Will any conclusions reached here alter the way I think about war or play wargames? NO!!!

Did any of the people who participated – willingly or unwillingly – in wars throughout history actually care whether war (by which I presume is meant the practice of war) was an art or a science?

Uh, yeah. Where do you think the question--let alone the many, many military men writing about it--come from? Have you read ANY of the quotes and sources given here?

And does anyone – other than the principal debaters here – care?

Who knows? A raise of hands? And does the answer to that question really matter at all?

Will any conclusions reached here alter the way I think about war or play wargames? NO!!!

Glad you answered that. I would have been really stumped.

Rest easy, this too shall pass.

Hold on just a minute Mollinary, let me read the original question again OK?

Art. War is too beautiful to be a science… Or is it the other way round?

"Round"? Who said war was round?

For me war is a science when you loose, its the blame game.

Its an art when you win, mostly because the winner brag about the fineness and skill they utilized.

Gotta be an art: science tries to keep things controlled and neat in set conditions. War is just too messy, kind of a cross between kindgergarten finger painting, a very sloppy pottery class, and a Jackson Pollock painting session.
With random explosions, dysentery, malaria, chemical weapons, and friendly fire.

science tries to keep things controlled and neat in set conditions.

Yep, doesn't sound like anything military at all. *sarcasm*

War is just too messy, kind of a cross between kindgergarten finger painting, a very sloppy pottery class, and a Jackson Pollock painting session.

Yeah, isn't it fortunate that science doesn't have to deal with anything too messy. *more sarcasm*