Reply to comment

I found the title of Natalie Angier's article somewhat disturbing, yet many of theories presented were appealing. I agree that the gulf between the arts, humanities, and the sciences is too broad. This divorce is counter productive both within academia and general society. People use this polarization to justify a lack of literacy in science. However, everyone needs some basic scientific skills to participate actively in medicine, society, and technology. Scientific literacy is every bit as valuable as the more traditional type of literacy. I consider scientific literacy to the ability to interpret scientific information. It is important to be able to comprehend the context of facts and observations. The ability to assess the applicability and worth of research results. Without these skills, people are unable to fully understand scientific information. Interpretation of information is requisite for any discipline, art, history, or science. Therefore, education should focus on developing these skills.
Despite the similarities and methodologies, I think that science and art differ with respect to the human intent, or aims, that motivate them. They should be taught as separate autonomous disciplines. However, that is not say that collaboration would not be productive. It would be very interesting to see a common topic discussed in both artistic and scientific styles. This would result in a more complete portrayal of the issue.