Art and science exist in the popular imagination at different ends of the spectrum of human achievement. Science rests on the systematic study of the world around us, its orderly permissions move us toward generalizable conclusions. Science requires the application of rigorous methods, in a way that is replicable by others, incrementally building on what has been discovered in previous decades. Art is our paradigm of human imagination and creativity. The best shatters convention with work that pushes us to look at the world in altered and distinctive ways. Science relies on the old virtues of austerity, sobriety, logic, and intellectual complexity. On the other hand, we think of art as spontaneous and impulsive, valuable when what it produces is beautiful, daring. Scientists are trained to weigh in on the truth or falseness of believers’ claims; artists sidestep facts for the emotionally compelling. We divide the academy into arts and sciences, and we imagine little archetypal overlap between scientists and artists. The scientist is the methodical thinker, while the artist thinks outside the box.
But perhaps there is more to the intersection of art and science, and a consideration of their similarities may lead to new observations about science, the subject of this series of essays. We suggest four instructive areas of commonality.
Read more here.