we clap our hands and stomp our feet....
I hold my hands up. i know jackass about science beyond teh Olvl syllabus which, believe me, i used to know quite well. in my erstwhile profession as a pure science student. well, if you want to count the colourful graphical versions of cloning featured in Time, you can but it doesnt add up to much. i can just hear the calls of 'extra" (extraneous, for the purists).
Before i begin, let me lay the ghost of the science-arts duel to rest According to a... a reliable source. the sciences deal with the natural world, and the arts with the human world. Fair enough. no one is going to confuse a hydrogen atom with Mona Lisa. Or the discovery of X-rays with the French Revolution. All our knowledge can be pigeonholed, it seems. At first galnce at least.
Alright, its obvious that i actually mean to say something else/ pop quiz, hot-shot: 'what is economics?' 'Economics is a social science. Scoial because it deals with human behavious. Scientific becuase it uses the scientific method.' in other words, it is both science and art. Wonderful. we all know the exception to the rule. wthe exception proves the rule. well, not really. what is psychology? what is sociology? what is architecture? obviously, the arts the sciences exist in a continuum. Classical hard sciences on one side, fine arts on the other, and a million grey disciplines inbetween.
In fact there's more simliarities between the science and arts that meets the eye. For example, both physics and music are considered by Aristotle to be 'probable knowledge', as opposed to 'vertain knowledge'. of 'probable knowledge' the Greek philosopher had this to say. 'we must be satisfied to ondicate the truth ith a rough and general sketch: when the subject and basis of discussion consist of matters whcih hold good only as a general rule ...'. Mathematics and logic lend themselves to certainty. Not so physics, contrary to popular belief. The way Einstien overthrew Newtonian physics demonstrates in matters relating to the physical world, general rules whcih are probably true apply. These rules are neither universla nor eternal.
The notion that the arts subjects promote critical thinkingmore than the sciences is nothing but a sympton of our nation's education system. Apart from the obsession with manufacturing creativity for a knowledge-based economywhivh is evident a such a statement (yay irony) it is the syllabi that our science students face, and not the nature of the sciences, whcih contribute to the false belief that there is nothing creative abt the scientific process. Coming up with a valid hypothesis is just as innocative an activity as writting an essay. So science and arts are equally creative.
While diplomacy is sometimes necessary, i believe that i may have overdone the balanceing act this time round. i must state categoricaly that despite what i've written above (all of which are highly unoriginal, having been fliched from one website or another), I still believe that studying the arts is more fulfilling and meaningful. Did you serosuly expect me to betray my faculty in my first year of admission? Irrationality is afact of life, and that will be my half-baked excuse for ignoring tne objective analysius given above, as i proceed to explain my preference for the arts. so sue me.
The arts are necessart disciplines while the sciences are not. the arts study the human world. it makes perfect sense to me that if we didnt know ourselves, we would not be doing very well. OK, that sounds vaguely like somehting from a self-help book. but you get the point. on the other hand, not knowing the natural world is not as dismal a prospect. we can live without air-con; we can live without mp3s. we dont need an equation to tell us things fall to the ground when we throw them up. an example of something we do need is history, becuase "if we dont learn from the past, we will be forced to relive it"
Furthermore, at least the arts have integrity. They dont claim to know all. Everything is subjective, whcihis the way the world is (on this point at least Aristotle agreed with me partially). However the sciences are rigid and stuanchly objective. Tell me you have never frustrated by your tutor telling you, "You have to apply that law in this manner because that is the way it is done. that is the way everybody does it. that is the correct way. i dont knwo why it is correct, but it's correct.' such arrogance is just too much for me to take. actualy, i dont mind arrogance so much as the falsehood. Everybody knows that there are numerous ways to arrive at the 'truth', whatever that means. But the sciences insist that on lying that there is only one accepted, right way at any one time. of course there are literary critics who are adamant that their interpretations are THE ONE. or marxist historians who believe that commies eventually will have their day in the sun. But come on, we all knwo tongue in cheek when you hear it.
That said, i can start this article proper. "Using a calculus to derive the quantum mechanics of the displacement of amoeba in a controlled environment."
so full of bull.
Before i begin, let me lay the ghost of the science-arts duel to rest According to a... a reliable source. the sciences deal with the natural world, and the arts with the human world. Fair enough. no one is going to confuse a hydrogen atom with Mona Lisa. Or the discovery of X-rays with the French Revolution. All our knowledge can be pigeonholed, it seems. At first galnce at least.
Alright, its obvious that i actually mean to say something else/ pop quiz, hot-shot: 'what is economics?' 'Economics is a social science. Scoial because it deals with human behavious. Scientific becuase it uses the scientific method.' in other words, it is both science and art. Wonderful. we all know the exception to the rule. wthe exception proves the rule. well, not really. what is psychology? what is sociology? what is architecture? obviously, the arts the sciences exist in a continuum. Classical hard sciences on one side, fine arts on the other, and a million grey disciplines inbetween.
In fact there's more simliarities between the science and arts that meets the eye. For example, both physics and music are considered by Aristotle to be 'probable knowledge', as opposed to 'vertain knowledge'. of 'probable knowledge' the Greek philosopher had this to say. 'we must be satisfied to ondicate the truth ith a rough and general sketch: when the subject and basis of discussion consist of matters whcih hold good only as a general rule ...'. Mathematics and logic lend themselves to certainty. Not so physics, contrary to popular belief. The way Einstien overthrew Newtonian physics demonstrates in matters relating to the physical world, general rules whcih are probably true apply. These rules are neither universla nor eternal.
The notion that the arts subjects promote critical thinkingmore than the sciences is nothing but a sympton of our nation's education system. Apart from the obsession with manufacturing creativity for a knowledge-based economywhivh is evident a such a statement (yay irony) it is the syllabi that our science students face, and not the nature of the sciences, whcih contribute to the false belief that there is nothing creative abt the scientific process. Coming up with a valid hypothesis is just as innocative an activity as writting an essay. So science and arts are equally creative.
While diplomacy is sometimes necessary, i believe that i may have overdone the balanceing act this time round. i must state categoricaly that despite what i've written above (all of which are highly unoriginal, having been fliched from one website or another), I still believe that studying the arts is more fulfilling and meaningful. Did you serosuly expect me to betray my faculty in my first year of admission? Irrationality is afact of life, and that will be my half-baked excuse for ignoring tne objective analysius given above, as i proceed to explain my preference for the arts. so sue me.
The arts are necessart disciplines while the sciences are not. the arts study the human world. it makes perfect sense to me that if we didnt know ourselves, we would not be doing very well. OK, that sounds vaguely like somehting from a self-help book. but you get the point. on the other hand, not knowing the natural world is not as dismal a prospect. we can live without air-con; we can live without mp3s. we dont need an equation to tell us things fall to the ground when we throw them up. an example of something we do need is history, becuase "if we dont learn from the past, we will be forced to relive it"
Furthermore, at least the arts have integrity. They dont claim to know all. Everything is subjective, whcihis the way the world is (on this point at least Aristotle agreed with me partially). However the sciences are rigid and stuanchly objective. Tell me you have never frustrated by your tutor telling you, "You have to apply that law in this manner because that is the way it is done. that is the way everybody does it. that is the correct way. i dont knwo why it is correct, but it's correct.' such arrogance is just too much for me to take. actualy, i dont mind arrogance so much as the falsehood. Everybody knows that there are numerous ways to arrive at the 'truth', whatever that means. But the sciences insist that on lying that there is only one accepted, right way at any one time. of course there are literary critics who are adamant that their interpretations are THE ONE. or marxist historians who believe that commies eventually will have their day in the sun. But come on, we all knwo tongue in cheek when you hear it.
That said, i can start this article proper. "Using a calculus to derive the quantum mechanics of the displacement of amoeba in a controlled environment."
so full of bull.