I think that comparing and contrasting the arts and sciences can help us demonstrate a deeper understanding about both The sciences and the arts.
The Similarities
The first similarity between sciences and arts is the assumption that scientific laws and the intended messages of arts don’t vary over time. For example, it has been assumed by scientists that the theory of conservation of energy will remain constant over time; similarly, the authors of literary works or the artists of paintings assume that the intended message/s of their works will remain the same throughout time even though the interpretations of the works may vary with time. Another similarity is that revelations in the sciences as well as the arts lead to a deeper insight about the natural world as well as human behaviour.
The Differences
In science, theories are not accepted unless they can be tested and verified by experimentation. Also, in science, experimentation can be used to prove whether a theory is true or false. However, in the arts, the question of whether and idea is true or false doesn’t make much sense because The Arts depend on the personal experiences and emotions of the people. Another difference between the arts and the sciences is that in science the accuracy and value of a theory can be quantified, whereas, in arts, the value of work can’t be determined because the interpretation of arts depends on personal opinions, experiences and emotions. In science, the manipulation of data leads to inaccurate results and the formulation of false theories, which can have a major impact on society. However, in the arts, the manipulation of details happens and is allowed because arts depend on a person’s interpretation of details and events, which took place. For example, a paintings during world war 1 in Germany and modern day paintings in Germany may be very different because of the different experiences of people during those time periods. However, the gravitational constant was the same during the world war and during the first world war; and if the data used to compute the gravitational constant was false, the value would also be incorrect.
In my opinion, the preceding are the similarities and differences between the sciences and the arts.
Thanks Suhaas. Clearly written and on time 🙂
I think there may be more to say than this. You suggest “in arts, the value of work can’t be determined because the interpretation of arts depends on personal opinions, experiences and emotions.” I think you are right that there is interpretation, but surely we can say some art is better than another? Are all fils really equally good? All novels equally bad? If so, why have some survived centuries while other are forgotten? While there may be no absolute truth (like science), surely we can say some works of art are better than others?
Of course, you are nevertheless correct that Science tends to be timeless than art…. but perhaps it’s not quite as simple as you suggest