Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- potsdam2019:start [2019/12/09 20:39] – admin
+++ potsdam2019:start [2019/12/10 10:31] (current) – florian
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Slot 1: Sat 15:00-17:00 "processes in research"\\
 Slot 2: Sat 18:00-20:00 "biographies in science"\\
-Slot 3: sat 20:00-open end  "dinner and bar crawling in Potsdam"\\
+Slot 3: sat 20:00-open end  "dinner and bar visit in Potsdam"\\
 Slot 4: Sun 12:00-15:00 "arts as science, science as arts"\\
 concluding session: 15:00-16:00+
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 [[Session 2 - Biographies in Science]]
-[[Session 3 - Potsdam at Night]]
+[[Session 3 - Arts as Science, Science as Arts]]
-[[Session 4 - Arts as Science, Science as Arts]]
-Summary: \\
-We asked the at remaining people at the end of the workshop to shortly warp up, what they took from this workshop. We want to let this be the summary.
-Berna:
-  * Processes and practices in science:
-    * Further develop understanding
-    * New inspiration for already started project about arxiv with Leo (WEBSITE?): Who are the people behind these papers. New emphasis maybe on how did this paper evolve?
-    * The other topic about a new institution should be the topic of a further meeting and an upcoming article.
-Pedro:
-  * First BRCP meeting, very happy to meet people with a similar mind-set
-  * One-year ago with 2 fellow academia renegades he had a very similar idea like the BRCP and a independent institute.
-  * Emphasizes the difference science/art: constrained/free, and also sees analogies
-  * Likes very much the idea of including the history of the research in a publication. Also the failures, which he considers very important, would have place here.
-  * Art can be very helpful for scientific outreach to make it more appealing and dynamical. Also to give the audience more opportunities for interaction. He did not think about this before in this way.
-Markus:
-  * Great inputs for a personal science-art project "Butterfly Collection"
-  * The story of changing opinions and arguments would be a good test for mapping a process, maybe this can be tried in an isolated case with some form of mapping technique.
-Florian:
-  * Very interesting to see how diverse the opinions are even in such a special group like the BRCP (see factions in the first session), e.g. that there is a discussion about the validity of process or the science/art difference.
-  * Strengthened in his wish to pursue more collaborations between arts and science, especially related to scientific reflection and research process
-  * The institute idea was really inspiring!
-Willi:
-  * new ideas for imagination of the N-dimensional space. Very inspiring!
-Philip:
-  * There are many more connection between arts and science than thought before. He sees a lot of possibilities here!
-  * Very fond of the idea of the new institute! Maybe connect arts and science from the beginning?
-  * Very grateful for the term outreach!
-  * Sees himself as a researcher because he doesn't know where his processes are going to. However, actual researchers suffer a lot from having to clear goals and not being able to let things evolve freely.
+[[Summary]]