Reply to comment

I thoroughly enjoy Natalie Angier’s idea of demystifying science by looking at it in a non-conventional way. Historically speaking, the image that comes to mind when thinking about Scientists is the typical tall, white man in his white lab coat and glasses maybe with some wild hair and an assortment of pens in his breast pocket working diligently in a laboratory. This idea has changed profoundly over time to a more complicated and universally applicable to any individual. Now if one were to juxtapose that timeline with that of the image of the Artists and their stereotype of being a male and a creative genius, there would be distinct similarities between the two.

For one thing, the intent found behind Artist and Scientist seems to be the same. Because while a main component driving the progression of Science, as well as technology, is for the sake of increasing the likelihood of human survival, let alone the comfort of living, the driving force continuing Art in humans, for one thing, has been for the emotional expression and therefore relief it provides. With this in mind, one reason why art was originally taught to people in the first place as oppose to just picked up was to practice apprenticeship, guaranteeing the artistic methods, techniques, and craft mastered by one individual are carried down to the apprentice of the next generation. In the same way, presumably, the motive behind educating others about science was to ensure scientific knowledge was preserved long after.

One of the only things separating Science and Art is the use in what either one produces. I would argue that the products of science are geared more towards supporting and solidifying a certain idea while that of Art functions more as an expression of creative thought. Science I feel represents its claims about our understandings of the world in a persuasive manner while its counterpart, art, displays a more provocative representation of the world.

But now is this discrepancy enough to justify how both play out in this world? For instance, why are children provided with things such as coloring books and paint sets, promoting their artistic ability but not “scientific tools” like a magnifying glass or ruler to exercise their observation skills? Are children’s toys socially constructed to perpetuate the distinction that science is performed at a given time in a given place while art is a free-ranged activity? What does that say about society’s expectations of either practice? Could, what society considered art really is practiced in the classroom setting admirably, at least as much as science? Could, what they would call science possibly be conducted in the playground and still be regarded as inspiring and ingenious as art? Is there some underlying truth about raising children? Are toys only meant for creative exercise? Are there even “scientific” toys? Can the slinky, with its different reactions to the forces of gravity be considered one? Or do toys function for something else entirely, that being for pure entertainment? How much cognitive engagement and therefore learning would that involve then, if any?

For the same reason, whatever that may be, that young children are supplied with toys for artistic exercise, students are generally offered more art history courses and socio-artistic related fields of study than science history and socio-scientific related fields of study as well as majors and professions. On that same note, elementary school teachers composed of two sets of teachers; one that educates students in the fields of math, history, English, and science while the other educates specifically in the area of paint, another solely in music. Once again, what is this uneven representation prevalent in all levels of education instilling in the people of this society?