does art contain science? does sicence contain art? are those two completely diferent disciplines? i've been thinking about this, and i think that science could be concidered as art, since we start with curiosity, some level of creativity and inspiration, then we formulate a hypothesis then we follow the method... the scientific one...right? but then would't it make sicence too subjetive? i mean..to consider it as art...because we may turn science into art, but can we turn art into sicence without leading it to fraud?
i think there would have to be a sharp distinction between objectivity and subjectivity in order narrow the 'fraud' possibilities. but even if we come up with an 'objectivized' scientific inquiry, we would have the hypothesis formulation as the first step of the scientific method, which is mere metaphysical inquiry. this goes beyond objectivity. so if science is subjective, because it comes from the search of subjective entities, then knowledge itself even if committed to a system of proof, would be subjective. So art would come first than science, science would come to regulate art, and then we would be back to art again. right? but isn't it a logical process? isn't logic a scientific inquiry?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
i would support that science has art fundations, it is through inspiration that we engage in science. art is also the most human way of reacting
science is art, science belongs to the realm of art, since you need a starting point that will come out of inspiration and become an expression phenomenon. expression through art is a human condition, science is just a consequence of art.
I think that Science is a systematic approach to Knowledge, and this knowledge is ultimately aimed at being objective (Conservative). And when you consider that art is nothing more than a product of human activity or the mastery of it one may consider it to be more subjective (Liberal). So based on this deliberation it is logical to conclude that science can be art, but art cannot be science. Or not!
I agree that art cannot be science because art, being a subjective creation of our own and not basing it on facts, can be anything that we want. On the other hand, science can be artistic if we think of nature being the artist and earth its canvas (or something like that)!
how can we draw a line, if possible. of art and science? since art being anything we want then again can be used for anything we want, not only this but it seems to me that we are looking at science from the point of mathematical usage and such. art can in my view can be anything, science does seem to be a bit more rigid in that aspect. since it has hypotheses and all that.
then again, what do i know about these things. n___n
creo k es algo dificil decir k va primero, si la ciencia o el arte, ya k las dos provienen de dos condiciones humanas fundamentales, la primera, k es acerca del porque pasan las cosas alrededor de la persona, y la segunda, como expresar los sentimientos hacia el mundo alrededor, hasta se podria decir de k cada parte del cerebro controla el fundamento de estos conceptos, bueno todo esto segun mi maestro de psicologia, jejeje
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment