Reply to comment

Still interested in the comparisons between scientists/and "artists" (of all kinds). When I think of some process being described as an "art", I think of it as acting in a way that relies most heavily on intuition (or subconcious processes) gained from experience. So, the practice of medicine by a doctor would not necessarily/only be a conscious "expression of a theory by the doctor (artist)". Even though medical school involves a lot of "content" learning in the preclinical curriculum, when doctors are making decisions about a treatment, or a cause of disease X, a lot of times they're relying in part on gut instincts based on previous experience. Similarly, many artists describe being in a "zone" when they're working, tapping into subconscious knowledge and instincts; most experienced artists, for example, can't verbally express human anatomical expressions, they've just developed intuitions about the human form from experience. And the same for scientists...? It seems that even if many times we believe that predictions we make about things are rationally based, this just seems to be an explanation for the feeling/intuition we get about something (much like a lot of what Antonio Damasion describes). And for "the art of teaching"? So, if intuitions developed from experience are in fact important then, with respect to teaching, that would give support to the argument that teacher education should involve more practice and less "classroom theory"? And the same for all general areas of learning?