Not too long ago I had someone tell me that ‘Scientists are boring’ and it is those that study the arts are the ones that bring a spark to life. This statement has been nagging at me for quite a while now and I decided to answer it for myself. I really think that, like many other things, this comes down to balance.
There is no point denying that art brings out one’s creativity but I must ask: When you think of a scientist what do you think? A strict, rigid, unbending mind? Someone who is guided by laws and nothing more? Yet, to be a good scientist there has to be a spark of passion, innovation and most importantly imagination (and if you do not believe me all you really have to do is listen to Richard Feynman and you might be glued to the computer for an hour). Science has always been associated with being a very clinical job, where you must present your evidence without prejudice, and this is quite true but there is a flip side to the coin. Try to imagine the flow of electrons, the movement of molecules, the formation of the universe, the rapid chemistry of a cell, the evolution from primate to human. These are all things which sprouted from science. Each and everyone of these broke convention, posed new questions, unlocked a segment of our universe and now I ask 'what could be more thrilling?' Clearly, Science is in itself an art.
The same questions can be asked but taking a look at artists. Do they operate in a void of laws? Do they simply obscure our ideas of nature? but what is our idea of nature? These laws need to be pushed and new possibilities explored. Much like science, the arts looks at us, at our origin, and at the definitions of our surroundings. The approaches taken to answer these questions are quite different. Arts allow the incorporation of humanity into the universe, while the sciences provide the definition for the universe.
It seems that the two are part of a whole, and examples are not hard to come by. History is filled with scientists who melded the two together(from Ptolemy to Aristotle to da Vinci -- and yes even Feynman ). Yet, as we move into the future we seem to have separated these subjects into very distinct division (sometimes one holding prejudice against the other -- I won't deny the slight jab here and there). This divide comes from the fact that, like many subjects, specialization is taking over. With the amount of information out there, it is difficult to be able to study all of it and science has become a key player in the development of new technologies and the advancement of our knowledge. Yet, it is crucial to understand that a synergy, personal and societal, between the arts and the sciences is required.
The leaps forward in science require an ethical perspective, someone to interpret that consequences that would be imparted onto society. Many scientist say that science is self correcting, but those who do not know science must be able to account for implication of its use. All you really have to do is take a look at a small oil puddle making big headlines to understand. People expect science to have all the answers but there are limitations to what can be done and people need to listen. There are many powerful tools at out disposal for brining this pair together and a prime example is The Symphony of Science . Ultimately, science must derive from the arts and the arts must derive from science ( Wolfram does not seem to agree).
-Mr. V
__________
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." ~Einstein
No comments:
Post a Comment