Comments on: Weekly Head Voices #12: Ceci n’est pas une bibliothèque.

By: Peter Kok

Peter Kok — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:07:13 +0000

I largely agree with Gerwin’s view. We create the tools for the “real” scientists. But I think visualization is special in a different way also. The tools that the “real” scientists use, or as Charl calls it: “the pipeline from data acquisition to insight”, for me consist of two parts. The first part is imaging, where physical properties are mapped to raw data, which is physics, a “real” science. The second part is the image processing/visualization part, where the data is processed into visuals in such a way that the “real” scientist can interpret the data. Now, this interpretation step is important (and potentially very dangerous, but that is not my point right now). It is as if the “real” scientist is wearing glasses that distort reality in a way that we, as visualization scientists, think is right. In a sense, we create the reality as the “real” scientist perceives it. With respect to the “real” scientist, we create the truth, we are God. Visualization is not about science, it is about creating a belief system, creating a religion. (Something you should be careful with, but that’s a whole different topic… :-P)

By: Xi

Xi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:09:03 +0000

I join the disscussion for a few words. :)
Maybe holding the goal of solving hard problems, and on the way of exploring, new discoveries would come out, without prophet, in “real” science. :P

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:46:22 +0000

That must have been a really interesting person you had this discussion with. No really, I mean, think about it. Visualisation & Science. Pure. Genious. :)

I assure you that there is going to be a proposition on this in my thesis and albeit slightly premature, I hereby challenge my committee to counter it ;).

By: cpbotha

cpbotha — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:59:27 +0000

I agree with your points, although I *do* think we should worry, at least constructively worry. This type of constructive self-criticism is good for the field when we keep on analysing and improving.

With regard to Professor dr. Kunstenaar: I think that a certain type of art does play a small (but important role) in visualisation, but I wish to remain on *this* side of the spectrum, thank you very much.

By: Gerwin de Haan

Gerwin de Haan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:52:49 +0000

I think one shouldn’t worry too much on whether a “real science in progress” label could be applied to our visualization work. First, much of our more practical results can be considered as enabling tools for science itself in the sense that they enable “real” scientists to investigate data. Second, as soon as we investigate or measure (human) performance on our tools were doing “the real thing” ourselves.
Just like in other disciplines, and not only those in Computer Science, we can also lean much more to design-oriented approaches (from industrial design, architecture). With this in the mix it makes visualization much cooler than “just” classical science, don’t you think?
On the other hand, what if we would continue this reasoning, would we end up here: “Professor dr. Kunstenaar” http://weblogs.nrc.nl/cultuurblog/2010/02/02/professor-dr-kunstenaar/