<$BlogRSDURL$>

art vs science 

my mind started on this tack whilst reading sophie's world (yes, i know i'm a bit behind the times). some people denigrate art and propagate science saying that art is useless because it has no benefit in the here and now, whereas science produces tangible results. but do they not realise that a lot of revolutionary (what we now call scientific) theory was borne of philosophy, which as far as i know is considered an art. those who have read philosophy, bear with me. theories about atoms and biology were the fruits of philosophical wondering. so i guess 1 could say that scientists are the technicians of philosophers. they prove or disprove theories and improve upon those theories that are proven, through a process of evolution.

i do believe that quantum leaps of progress will be caused by art. simply because of this. science looks at things at a micro level. arts on the other hand tend not to concern themselves with the minutiae and see the big picture. thus the arts are more amenable to paradigm shifts.

I guess the following 2 sentences sum up my conclusions vis-a-vis art and science.

science is precise and EVOlutionary. art on the other hand is abstract (relative to science) and REVOlutionary.

disclaimer: the above mentioned half baked ideas are either someone else's ideas which i have corrupted or mine. if you think they are wrong, feel free to correct me. either by commenting or mailing me at vishra[at]gmail[dot]com.