Fill in the blanks

science knowledge

Kind of funny when you look at it etymologically.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes t____ a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is… I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the pistils (two syllables) in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the pistil. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower ____? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

It's not correct. The right word is much more closely related to "beauty" and "display".

Previous guesses were too general.

Best guess.

... well, it depends on how you interpret the word he's using. I said "orders/kingdoms" were too general, but I guess it's not necessarily the case. Still, my spontaneous interpretation of the word was even narrower than "species".

No. The word is more neutral, and is more related to "display/spectacle". Also, it's two syllables.

I cannot stress how simple/common that word is.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is… I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the ____ (two syllables) in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the ____(same word as above, but singular). It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower ____(one syllable)? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

lower clines