Reply to comment

My thought for the day is that science can be reduced to a combination or unification of curiosity and skepticism as exemplified by my kitten, Roady. When placed in a new room, Roady will almost immediately begin to explore, investigate, and interact with her surroundings. She will develop and test hypotheses based on some sort of observation, such as "the chair leg is inanimate." She may bat, paw, and pounce on the chair leg to determine whether or not it may be induced to move. Based on the results of her experiments, she may draw some conclusions about the nature of the chair leg.

Maybe I am reading too much into my kitten's antics or personifying her, or something. However, if you watch Roady for an hour, I think she will prove to you just what a good scientist she is! If you accept Roadie as a scientist, then you must accept all humans as scientists.

Making science accessable to all humans will require significant changes in science education and practice. In our currant society, many elements of science are elitist and exclude the majority. Is it consistent with our definition or description of science to make the discipline available to all? Or must the accepted account of science be altered first? If so, how? It is important to consider whether or not there are any prerequisites for participating in science. Analytical ability is necessary to interpret new observations and evaluate their relationship to various theories. How much does an individual's education affect or develop their critical thinking? Does an individual's intelligence correspond to their ability to contribute to scientific progress? How should an individual's capacity for participating in science be evaluated? Should it be? Are there levels of participation in science?

One of the aspects of being a chemistry major in college that I have found most challenging is explaining and justifying my scientific interests to my friends. Many of the people I have encountered perceive science as an abstract and elite discipline, disconnected from their interests and experiences. They consider themselves to be incapable of either comprehending or participating in science. They emphasize the above average intelligence of scientists and their disengagement with the rest of humanity. However, these criticisms are not unique to science and scientists. Art and artists are subject to the exact same criticisms. As someone who finds both art and science appealing I am interested in finding responses to these complaints.

I think it is important to note that I have never observed my kitten being involved in an artistic activity. It is entirely possible that my kitten does produce artistic projects that I merely do not recognize. Or it may be inferred that art is a uniquely human pursuit. This second idea might provide criteria for distinguishing between art and science in terms of psychology and neurobiology.
My education has provided me a few interesting thoughts about art and science.

At my small, all girls, college preparatory school, science was given great value. Three science courses were required and many more were offered. However, only one art course was necessary for graduation. This uneven distribution of requirements implies a prejudice in favor of science. This potential partiality may be resolved by examining the strength and number of programs provided by my high school for practical experience in the arts. This arrangement of curriculum and requirements suggests that there are two different strategies favored for art and science education. What is it about the nature of these two subjects that signifies the need for such divergent approaches? Is this style of education effective? Higher education's treatment of art and science raises additional concerns. Simply looking at a list of possible majors reveals interesting attitudes, the existence of an art history major and not a science history major. Why is the study of the history of art considered rewarding and the history of science not? Was this opinion always held?

Last semester I took a course about the philosophy of science. One of the topics that was discussed consistently throughout the semester was the demarcation issue. In class discussion we spent a significant amount of time trying to describe and determine what exactly science is. Our class found it interesting to compare and contrast art and science. Art and science are traditionally perceived as two distinct activities that each appeal to certain people. However, I am not convinced that a rigorous study of the two disciplines, their aims and methodologies would confirm this stereotype. I am interested in using my background in philosophy to pursue an exploration about the relationship between art and science. I would like to apply my insights to the area of science education.