In the essay “The future of science… is art?” by Jonah Lehrer, the argument presented is that art is a necessary part of the scientific process. In order to understand the intricacies of different scientific disciplines, art is essential to be able to take small pieces and make connections with those to an overall whole. To this I would have to agree. Art takes a different perspective on things. That’s what science is all about right? Compiling different perspectives in order to find the answer to a problem. This is essential to a working society as well, because if a society only values one type of information over the other, there would be no variation in the way people choose to think and view the world. As Lehrer put it, “To think in terms of analogies is to walk a tightrope of accuracy.” Art is not perfect either, there are many ways that one can construe art to their own values and beliefs. However, Science is mostly based on one belief, it is concrete. If you put the two together, there is a warm balance between the two. Separate, they may get contorted to where you can even recognize the original idea.
Gloss words:
- Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: This principle states that one cannot calculate the position and the velocity of an object accurately at the same time.
- Reductionism: The process of explaining something complex in simpler terms.
- Synapse: A space between two nerve cells in which neurotransmitters are released to conduct a nerve impulse.
Great! You have a potential claim, here: ” In order to understand the intricacies of different scientific disciplines, art is essential to be able to take small pieces and make connections with those to an overall whole.” I also like the quote you selected from Lehrer. Your balanced approach to this argument should serve you as you write your paper.