When someone mentions science, different pictures come to various people’s minds. Perhaps some people relate science to huge books, lab coats, microscopes, invention of a complex object, someone looking through a telescope, studies involving intricate numerical calculations, among many other things. As a matter of fact, all those images reflect some facets of science. On the other hand, none of them gives a full picture of science because science has various aspects. Many people view science as a collection of static facts recorded in books. It is also a process of discovery that makes us to relate the isolated facts into a coherent and in-depth understanding of the natural world. Even though, science and art usually develop separately, many people are inspired by both. According to Minkov, “The most fascinating thing we can experience is the mystery that lies between science and art. This mystery is the source of all true art and all facts about science. Therefore this unknown, mystery, is where science and art meet”. Science is a complex subject that differs from art because it is premised on proven results.
When looking at science with regard to culture, the aim is to develop a relationship between sciences and the arts and humanities. The differences between science, arts and even humanities attempt to respond to different types of questions. They include nature of the world which is inhabited by man, human nature, and probably the relationship between human beings and the environment. For arts, there is a comprehensive research that goes beyond the scientific cultural context to inform and contribute to its development. Situated in a different research pattern, arts bring information and knowledge that is not actually covered by science, giving impetus for possibilities of new scientific innovations and vital convergences of ideas and practices. It can promote a wider understanding of societal views regarding science, the diverse routes taken by science in various societies, the significance of scientific advancement in cultural set-ups and how this can transform and shape broader world views concerning science. In the 21st century, for example, arts research will inform science to the same extent as it charts its cultural influence. Consequently, there will be new scientific inquiry as well as accounts for the cultural, ethical and legal contexts to ascertain the future growth of many aspects of science. There is a growing acknowledgement of the relationships and interconnections between sciences and arts. There are potential innovations and creativity that this relationship can generate and the extent to which the scientific approaches in isolation can be used in order to counter the societal challenges.
Scientific knowledge, to a great extent, differs from regular knowledge. Human beings can never abide nature’s unresponsiveness; neither can they use scientific knowledge to try to wring from it a word of recognition. What many people think of as science today is not science as such; it is just an application of science, that is, technology. According to John Banville, modern science is being forced and it exerts pressure on its own advances so that it recognizes that the various truths it presents do not make absolute but poetic sense. This means that science laws are contingent and its facts are somewhat metaphorical. In fact, art and science differ fundamentally in their methods and end results. Science entails such a rigorous process that cannot be attained by art. A scientific supposition can always be either proved or disapproved as opposed to poems, piece of music, or even a picture. Banville says that science and art bear some similarities. However, the disparity between art and science gets much bigger with each new battle to subdue nature to human beings’ will.
According to some scholars, science is the only philosophical means of uncovering usable truths with any degree of reliability in the society. Minkov maintains that truth is something that can only be established through science and that without evidence, there is no science. This means that facts about ethics and intellectual integrity should not be taken seriously. This, perhaps, is true though there is no scientific way of determining this and we may be tempted to believe that there is no other way of knowing something reliably without science. The stance undermines the notion that the ethical objective of education must entail teaching learners how to establish, on their own, if what they are being taught is true. On the other hand, some people tend to believe that education should entail the promotion of critical thinking. Opponents say that science is not the only road leading to usable truths in the society. They argue that there are a number of ways to determine truth that are not scientific. They obviously depend on the sifting and weighing of evidence. On the contrary, this means that everyone who seeks evidence to determine the truth is a scientist otherwise all the judges can be referred to as scientists. In the same way, we can believe that there are also ethical truths although they are not scientific.
There has been a diverging opinion on whether religion contributes to our understanding of science or if science and religion share anything in common. Some scholars have asserted that everyone whose thinking is based on science does not believe in religion. It implies that science and religion would be great enemies. The assertion, however, has met a lot of opposition from different people. In addition, we do not receive much support for this idea from history. Besides, great scientists such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, among others were able to uphold their religious convictions alongside their wealth of scientific knowledge. Science and religion have similar fields of inquiry. It means that science and religion must dwell in the same space because they both seek to explore and define the same world. The only challenge with this point of view is that not all claims of truth can be tested in a similar manner. For instance, a historical claim cannot be confirmed through scientific technique. The scientific approach, in this case, is a systematic procedure involving questions, hypothesis, data analysis and interpretation, conclusion, recommendation, and even repetition. As much as elements of this process relate to historical testing, a religious or historical event cannot be repeated; neither can it be proven using the scientific experiments. To some extent, science and religion are overlapping fields. According to Minkov, a legitimate variance between science and religion can never hold and science that is not premised on religion is lame. He said that true religion cannot conflict with science in areas in which they overlap. While it is true that science mostly leads to facts, one should have awareness of the fact that most of the truths we believe on the basis that of mere probability and not absolute certainty.
The current convergence of art and science presents ample opportunity for artists and scientists to evaluate how these areas are related to an extent that they are indistinguishable. It also provides an opportunity for artists and scientists to determine how the respective areas of knowledge mutually relate and influence one another. There has been an insignificant distinction between science and art. First, both of them are viewed as vital aspects of culture, dependant on innovations and creativity. During the Renaissance, however, specialization was introduced. Consequently, science and art started to move towards different directions, only intersecting at some few points. Art and science have relationship that can be perceived when recognizing and exploiting the differences in the characteristics of natural dyes, pigmentation with regard to colors, texture, and transparency and how water and fire were used to transform these materials. For many years, the discovery of new minerals and other valuables has brought about new aesthetic prospects. In the contemporary world, similarly, chemistry (a branch of science that deals with the study of properties of materials and their transformations) has been a source of inspiration for art. It means that artistic works and science have become inseparable.
In reference to the discussion, one cannot argue that art is greater than science; neither can he/she say that science is greater than art. However, it is clear that regardless of the differences between the two, science and art so are so nearly similar to an extent that they are indistinguishable. It is also clear that science and religion are mutually dependent. Scientists need historical background to base their scientific research. Scholars have also found out that science is the road that leads to truths in the society. Scientific facts are based on evidence whereas truths found arts are based on history. With regard to culture, there is a close relationship between science and art. The interconnections and relationships between science and arts, in a cultural context, provide the potential for creativity and innovations that these relationships can develop and how scientific methods can be used to avert societal challenges.
Earn 10% from every order!
Earn money today! Refer our service to your friends