Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 thoughts on “Science = art?”

  1. Science differs form art in the fact that it can be understood in the same way, once explained, on the basis of common principles accepted as ‘true’ (because they can provide predictable outcomes).
    However there are many levels of communication between science and art: either one can be the basis for the development of the other: we think that it is possible to conjugate the art of movie making with the science of protein structure: see, for example the video here (http://www.scivis.ifc.cnr.it/index.php/videos ), aptly named PROTEIN EXPRESSIONS

  2. To compare science and art one must first specify which level of scientific research one is talking about. Science and art, (and theology for that matter) converge as we go from the bottom upwards. Fundamental science is the product of hard labour and inspiration. This is the best illustrated by the number of authors linked with the generally acknowledged great achievments. All fundamental scientific results have been obtained by single authors, what testifies the dominant role of the inspiration.
    The most appropriate artistic counterpart is the poetry. Do we know poems written by more than single author? Cooperations in arts do occur (Laookon. Nike), and in science too (like BCS theory of superconductivity), but are exceptions of rule. Creativity appears essentially an individual phenomenon.