Back to my time of old school, there existed in our college bias and animosity between the science and arts departments. You’ve probably heard the jokes–"your philosophy is not as valuable as a hamburger.‘’; and “Graduates in the arts can expect jobs at McDonalds.” On the one hand science majors accused arts majors of basking in impractical ideals, while arts majors accused them of being creatively challenged.
Whatever happened to a “mens sano in corpore sano” ideal that recognizes a need to cultivate the total human potential. Has economics trumped individual diversification?
economics and pragmatic application…
-Imp
Its funny how the best science is done by people with creative minds isn’t it? There’s something about the scientific mindset that discourages genius. Thats why Einstein et al had to ‘think outside the box’.
Agreed! =D> Science without creativity is unproductive. Also, creativity, without some science, at least in methodology, is abstract. How can educators reunite these?
Creativity requires science to develop creative instruments.
Science requires creativity develop ‘scientific’ instruments.
They are reliant on each other for progression.
if a science student made fun of my schoolin’ i would punch him square in the nose…
That would put a different spin on things…
Good!
art is for aethetics and science is for truth, both require a lot of creativity. but they’re not the same
unless you have science art (which there is a lot of) like ‘genetic music’ whozoo.org/mac/Music/ (art revolving around science) its still more about aesthetics though.
not that science isn’t aesthetically pleasing or whatever.
Cyrene, I like the way you think, except for giving “truth” a fuzzy definition. “What is truth ?”, asked doubting Pilot"–who did not wait for an answer (Bacon, Nietzsche). No discipline has a monopoly on definitions of truth. Where art is a discpline it is “scientific”. Where science is not crippled by discipline, it is an "art’. Aesthetics is not limited to a definition of either. Candance Pert notes that an image of endorphin receptors in full concert was the first neuroscience to appear on a t shirt! It’s right up there along with Escher!
Can’t we teach aesthetics and practicality as complements?
I don’t know any good engineers who are not creative. The devices in front of you are evidence for that. Science and creativity are not two black and white things. Being a physics graduate is not very amazing/practical in the job market, but it can be pretty creative. Having a degree in investment banking on the other hand…are you talking BSc’s or science as in bio/physics/chem courses? But yup as an engineer I do make fun of art students alot, cause well, the truth is… 
There are jobs/industries where science and art go hand-in-hand/rely on each other!
ya ur a advertisment person aren’t you? (i hate almost all adds)
i had a good idea for a pesi add, tell me what you think… P.S dont steal it…
“The pepsi Guy”
A series of commercials about some pepsi truck driver in his fancy pepsi truck delivering pepsi to needy stores…
What is your professional opinion…
Love it!
I work in ‘niche market’ advertising/media output: not the commercial/mass market subliminal-selling sector, but I can play along if you think you can keep up with me…
Just take a job in research ethics and give those lab-dwellers a hard time for a living.
ethics is not my bag…
I’m more of a thinker type… and My thinking tells me that ethics are not going to be a part of the seemingly turbulant future…
I plan to get wealthy one way or another and move somewhere tropical and secluded…
Sounds like a solid plan, Dubs. Now all that’s left is hammering out the details.
I’m thinking litterature…
Fiction… Possibly Philosophy…
The differences between science and art are almost entirely down to institutional bullshit.
Both involve egotistical meddling with the world and declaring oneself to be right all the time.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was the quintessential renaissance man: artist, mathematician, scientist, and engineer. He was a great lover of geometry, and devoted much time to it starting in his early forties. His most outstanding polyhedral accomplishment is the illustrations for Luca Pacioli’s 1509 book The Divine Proportion. At right is one of the illustrations from that book. The term Ycocedron Abscisus in the title plaque means truncated icosahedron, and the term Vacuus refers to the fact that the faces are hollow. (The drawings are beautifully hand colored like this in the Ambrosiana manuscript, reprinted by Officina Bodoni, 1956, and also by Silvana Editoriale, 1982.)
It is an argumentum ignorantum, an argument from ignorance. And a false dichotomy.
Other than placing arbitrary subjective divisions where none otherwise exist, there is no ‘difference’ between ‘art’ and ‘science’. The same ‘genius’ gives life to each. No ‘advanced’ (mature) artist or scientist would ever engage in such a neophytically egoic argument…
(Thank goodness for academia!)
*__-