What makes knowing science is an art valuable? First and foremost, people love to be creative. Creating a product increases happiness. If people understood science heavily depends on being creative and producing new products, then more people will want to pursue it. Also, if you want to stay competitively ahead in the global economy (which I know I do because this American lifestyle is awesome!), then having motivated people in scientific fields is required. In fact, having creative people in general is better for an economy, regardless the discipline in which they are working (this is why I disagree strongly whenever schools cut "art" programs for budget reasons, for education should allow the opportunity to practice being creative in a variety of disciplines). Sadly, the way science has been primarily taught is as a skill or a list of facts to memorize. If the goal is to learn a scientific subject, such as chemistry, then it could be presented as a list of facts. However, if the goal is to learn what science is, then memorizing facts causes a false idea of what science is in the learner. Importantly, science is how the content came to be known, not the content itself.
A second reason for understanding that science is an art is for the likely decrease in what I'm going to call "social elitism." People put scientists up on a pedestal; I often hear phrases such as "I'm too dumb for science." But if people understood that science is an art, then the imaginary pedestal will at least shrink to a step. People understand being a good artist, whether a musician, painter, or athlete, requires practice and dedication. This will at least cause people to respect a scientist more on a personal level like they do other artists. I can only dream of how cool it would be to have a group of students dreaming about becoming scientists instead of the normal dreams of being an athlete, rockstar, or hero. These two reasons can be obtainable if one understands that science is an art, but to what extent IS science an art?
Let's look at some quotes trying to describe art.
Both of these quotes speak of a product being created for human use. I believe another way to define art is as a product a person created. Let's look at a few examples. First, we have a painter creating a painting. Second, we have a musician creating a song. Third, we have an athlete creating a performance. For science, the product being created is knowledge about the physical workings of the universe.
A second similarity between art and science is the fact that the best products get used. Again, let's look at some examples. First, you'd pay more money for a professional painting than a painting by a kindergartner. Second, if a musician's music is really good, then it becomes popular and played on the radio. Third, a professional athlete is arguably one of the best at his/her sport. For science, only the best scientific theories are used. Furthermore, science also has "teams" for which to cheer. An example is the two teams of explaining gravity. In one corner we have string theory. In the other corner we have loop quantum gravity. And just like painters, musicians, and sporting teams have their own supporters, these two scientific ideas do, too!
My last piece of my argument is the fact all arts have techniques to help them. For example, painters learn brush techniques and how to mix paint. Also, musicians must learn how to play their instruments and write songs. And athletes learn proper form and the rules of the sport. For science, scientists learn how to test variables, interpret data, and form a conclusion. All these techniques can be practiced, meaning everyone's ability can increase in any art discipline.
Science is an art. Creating art adds both meaning and happiness to a person's life. I'll leave you with this one last piece of evidence. All art is created by a person. Science, too, is a human endeavor! For the greater good, people must understand science is an art...
A second reason for understanding that science is an art is for the likely decrease in what I'm going to call "social elitism." People put scientists up on a pedestal; I often hear phrases such as "I'm too dumb for science." But if people understood that science is an art, then the imaginary pedestal will at least shrink to a step. People understand being a good artist, whether a musician, painter, or athlete, requires practice and dedication. This will at least cause people to respect a scientist more on a personal level like they do other artists. I can only dream of how cool it would be to have a group of students dreaming about becoming scientists instead of the normal dreams of being an athlete, rockstar, or hero. These two reasons can be obtainable if one understands that science is an art, but to what extent IS science an art?
Let's look at some quotes trying to describe art.
"Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity."
"Art is a discovery and development of elementary principles of nature into beautiful forms suitable for human use."The first quote is by Leo Tolstoy, in his essay "What is Art?" The second is by Frank Lloyd Wright.
Both of these quotes speak of a product being created for human use. I believe another way to define art is as a product a person created. Let's look at a few examples. First, we have a painter creating a painting. Second, we have a musician creating a song. Third, we have an athlete creating a performance. For science, the product being created is knowledge about the physical workings of the universe.
A second similarity between art and science is the fact that the best products get used. Again, let's look at some examples. First, you'd pay more money for a professional painting than a painting by a kindergartner. Second, if a musician's music is really good, then it becomes popular and played on the radio. Third, a professional athlete is arguably one of the best at his/her sport. For science, only the best scientific theories are used. Furthermore, science also has "teams" for which to cheer. An example is the two teams of explaining gravity. In one corner we have string theory. In the other corner we have loop quantum gravity. And just like painters, musicians, and sporting teams have their own supporters, these two scientific ideas do, too!
My last piece of my argument is the fact all arts have techniques to help them. For example, painters learn brush techniques and how to mix paint. Also, musicians must learn how to play their instruments and write songs. And athletes learn proper form and the rules of the sport. For science, scientists learn how to test variables, interpret data, and form a conclusion. All these techniques can be practiced, meaning everyone's ability can increase in any art discipline.
Science is an art. Creating art adds both meaning and happiness to a person's life. I'll leave you with this one last piece of evidence. All art is created by a person. Science, too, is a human endeavor! For the greater good, people must understand science is an art...
