What Are The Similarities And Differences Between The Sciences And The Arts As Intellectual Discipli Essay, Research Paper

During the course of this essay, I will attempt

first to criticise science and scientists and show the arrogant assumptions

that are made about science.? I will

then discuss the similarities between arts and sciences in the light of my

criticisms, and finally look closely at the many differences between arts and

sciences. There are several different criticisms that have been commonly

levelled at science and scientists as a whole.?

I shall begin by attempting to identify these criticisms and identifying

the reasoning behind each of them. The first of these criticisms is

that science has been given similar status to a religion. It was commonly

thought in the early days of science that science would eventually develop a

theory for everything, thereby replacing religion through removing the

ambiguous and the incomprehensible parts of life with which religion

dealt.? In many ways science has

replaced religion in the 21st century, as it has become the object

of faith and even devotion.? A blind

faith has been placed in the unquestionable correctness of science and

scientific research.? It was Emile

Durkheim who first advanced the theory that given enough time, science would

replace all traditional religions to be replaced by a formal, unquestionable

religion based upon science.? It is the

arrogance of many scientists that leads us to believe that scientific theories

are facts, and can be treated as ?truth? replacing religion by explaining the

facts behind the creation and existence of the world.? The problem with this belief that science is unquestionable fact

and can be treated in a similar way to a religion is twofold. First, scientific

theories are advanced through observation and experimentation, these theories

can never be proved entirely correct since they are based only on certain

observations, as the full facts can never be known, a theory can only be said

to be correct in so far as it is correct from the observations made given the

facts available.? Secondly, science and

religion can never be directly linked since they do not overlap in any shape or

form.? Science deals with the physical,

religion with the insubstantial.? In

their very essence the two are diametrically opposed to one another and can?t

be compared.? In short, science deals

with the how, religion, the why.?

Although science attempts to understand the world around us, how it was

created and how we and other creatures came to exist, it can never fully

explain the automated human search for a higher being.? There seems to be a desire within humans to

believe in something larger and greater than that which is visible and

physical, something science can never explain.?

For this reason, science can never replace religion, as it simply does

not explain enough.? It?s explanations

fall far short of what would be needed to satisfy human curiosity.? Religion, in general, does a much better job

of explaining what needs to be explained about human nature. However, Scientists in recent

years have attempted to give their work a status of being unquestionably

correct.? As I have already explained,

the truth of science or the correctness or otherwise of a given theory can never

be entirely proved.? A theory can only

be proved correct in so far as it is correct given a certain set of facts, and

without having all the facts available, a theory can never be given the status

of absolute fact, and consequently, no scientific theory can ever be proved,

although it can be proved false through further research.? However, this strong criticism of science

can be taken even further.? Karl Popper

put forward the theory that scientific ?facts? of the present day are simply

probabilities, and only hold this status until such time as new evidence

emerges allowing the theory to be dropped or adapted.? Thomas Kuhn took this criticism of scientists even further, he

believed that scientists, for the vast majority of the time, went to great lengths

to fit their experiments to already existing theories, or when new information

was taken into account, and it was simply accommodated by existing theories

rather than new theories being created.?

Kuhn went further in his criticism; he claimed that when new theories

were advanced, it was normally due to a competition between two

scientists.? Eventually, one theory

would emerge victorious, however, this emergence, claimed Kuhn, had little to

do with the correctness or otherwise of the theory and more to do with the

political connections and status of the scientists involved in the battle.

Feyerabend takes his criticism of the methodology of science to the extreme and

claims that the scientific experiments are not based on observation of facts,

but interpretation of what was seen.? He

claimed that theories were not so much formulated by experimentation and

careful experimentation, but more through conjecture, metaphysical speculation,

inspiration and revelation.? This treats

scientists as creative and irrational, making observations fit preconceived

ideas, instead of the objective, rational, self-critical people they attempt to

be. A further criticism that has been

levelled at science is that it is heavily dependent on cultural background and

presuppositions, and not the value-free discipline that it is so frequently

thought to be.? This relies on the idea

that a culture will only examine and discover that which is important to that

culture.? Science is currently accused of

?Eurocentricism?.? This refers to the

western dominance that is exerted over scientific research. The result is that

scientific study revolves around solving problems that afflict the western

world, rather than attempting to solve far more difficult and profound problems

afflicting the third world.? For

example, much funding is currently being given towards finding a cure for

cancer.? A further criticism of western

science is that it is based on economics. Those who benefit most from a

breakthrough in medical science are not those who benefit from the treatment as

patients, but those who benefit as investors as they are the ones who receive

the money from the sale of the treatment to health services and hospitals.? There is also arrogance about

western methods of conducting scientific experiments.? The western scientists appear to believe that there is only one

way in which to conduct scientific experiments, there are no exceptions or

contradictions.? In actual fact, there

are many varied ways of approaching science, and different cultures have

different emphasise when examining the world around us according to their

individual culture. The ?supremacy? of science, its

entire correctness has been brought about by the arrogance of western

scientists.? For many years, scientists,

through deception, have implanted the idea in people?s brains that scientific

theories are unquestionably correct despite all information to the

contrary.? In fact, scientific supremacy

has been taken so far through arrogance that the truth of science, as well as

being rarely questioned, has gained the status of religion in our modern

society, although science can never explain the human tendency to a belief in a

?God? or a supernatural being, nor can it prove to the contrary.? In this, however, I believe we see even more

apparently the human desire for something to believe in, and despite its many

flaws, for some people, science provides the alternative to a religion.? Furthermore, in the attempt to maintain the

belief that all scientific theories should be taken as gospel, scientists

simply attempt to fit new information into old theories, or when a theory must

be disregarded, it is described as ?unscientific?.? Scientific theories are also subject to human observation and

therefore preconceived ideas, notions and creative thoughts.? In this respect therefore, the observations

can be made to fit the preconceived ideas.?

The supremacy of western science over other scientific cultures is also

questionable as there are different ways to conduct science.? In short, western science has arrogantly

given the impression that there is only one true scientific method, that which

is used by western scientists.? This

arrogance has led western peoples to believe unquestioningly in what scientists

say, and those who read it unquestioningly apparently regard all scientific

theory as absolutely correct. When these criticisms are

examined under close scrutiny, one finds that many of the criticisms that are

levelled at arts and their relative biases due to human thinking are also being

levelled at science.? The creative

nature of science, a concept that most people would not initially grasp given

our set perception of science is most definitely a part of the creation of new

theories.? It is often the case that

scientists are vulnerable to flashes of imagination and inspiration leading to

preconceived ideas or bias when conducting an experiment based on

observation.? In this way, it can be

shown that despite the perceived rationality of scientists. In fact, many of

the observations made are seldom questioned, as it appears, when the scientist

expects something to happen, that is what they see.? It might be interesting to bring an impartial observer to an

experiment of this kind and see what they saw.?

As it is, we are all so indoctrinated by the correctness of science that

theories are seldom questioned.? I can

therefore state that science is not only based mainly upon inspirational

thought, a creative aspect of the human brain, but is also subject to bias and

human error. These are all concepts that can be directly compared with the arts. In many ways, as I have proved

both sciences and arts are based largely upon perception, and how an individual

perceives a given event.? The fact is

that whether it is a reaction between marble chips and hydrochloric acid, a

beautiful sunset or a set of events, the chemist, painter and historian are all

subject to the brains interpretation of that which is set before it.? The chemist may carefully observe the

reaction noting down the changes, but this image is only understood through the

brains interpretation of what the eyes see.?

Similarly, the brain of a painter may interpret a beautiful sunset

through the eyes and hence the painter will paint an image based upon his

perception.? The historian, in a similar

way to the way in which a scientist analyses his collected data, will analyse

the facts that are presented to him in order to come up with a theory.? In this way the many similarities between

the sciences and arts as intellectual disciplines can be seen clearly, they are

all ultimately reliant on perception and interpretation.? Therefore, it can be assumed that

although scientists attempt to distance themselves from and repute any claims

that science as a discipline is subject any form of human error and instead

attempt to give the impression that scientists are meticulous, rational,

careful, observant and prepared to check and recheck theories until it is

certain that they are correct, they are in fact as subject to human creativity

and capability to make errors as their artistic counterparts. It is this

reliance upon humanity in the discipline of science that makes it so similar to

the arts in its ability to make assumptions and mistakes. However, despite all of this

criticism, it is difficult to compare sciences and arts directly as they are

evidently a considerably different in their very essence as they essentially

deal with entirely different concepts, and all though some of the analysis and

observation skills are common to both sorts of discipline the two are in many

ways diametrically opposed to one another.?

Essentially, science is intent upon understanding that which exists in

the world around us, whereas the arts are more concerned with interpretation of

that same world.? This fundamental

emphasis that science places upon understanding may rely upon human observation

and inspiration and therefore involve and element of human interpretation, but

ultimately it is far more concerned with looking closely at the already

existing interrelations between two things and upon close scrutiny, an interpretation

can be made that can explain for the most part a complex

interrelationship.? On the other hand,

the arts will not delve below the surface and look at the very fundamentals of

life itself and break this down through complex analytical processes, instead

the arts are concerned with that which exists in a different way.? The arts are far more concerned with an

appreciation of that which is perceived, and an interpretation of the same.? For example, instead of breaking down a

wheat field into many stalks of wheat composed of a stems, composed of vascular

bundles and pith etc, an painter or poet will simply look at the beauty of the

field in its entirety and write about or paint a picture of what he sees. In conclusion, the sciences and

arts have much in common; they are essentially dependent on the human

imagination for inspiration.? The

creative influence of the human mind exerts a powerful influence over both

intellectual disciplines, and scientific theories can be considered just as

dependent upon this creative factor as the artistic disciplines.? However, it can be said that in many ways

science is more concerned by observation of facts reducing the scope for

creativity after the initial idea.? The

scientific may not be able to suppress entirely his creative, artistic side but

this is certainly less apparent in the scientist than in the artist.? The scientist must be objective and look at

everything as impartially as is humanly possible, rather than letting himself

be swayed by what he expects or wants to happen.? It is obvious that there is a certain element of bias is all

scientific theories, but this is less apparent than with the artistic

disciplines, where the artist has total control over how he portrays a given

instance or scene and what bias he personally has.? Sciences and arts separate essentially in what they deal with as

a discipline.? Science is essentially

concerned with understanding, whereas the arts are more concerned with

perception.? This is the fundamental

difference between the sciences and arts as intellectual disciplines, and

although there are many comparisons to be drawn between to two intellectual

disciplines due to their common dependence upon the frailties and faults of

human nature, they are never the less essentially different in what they

concentrate on.?