Art is an important key to our lives and can be beneficial to scientific purposes. Lehrer suggests that art is also essential to science. He states, “We need to find a place for the artist within the experimental process , to rediscover what Bohr observed when he looked at those cubist paintings.” This explains how art is connecting with key essentials to science. Likewise, Pinker catches on to a similar idea. He says, “The second ideal is that the acquisition of knowledge is hard. The world does not go out of its way to reveal its workings.” This means that this gives science help with understanding and that it can be applied to better learn the material. Both relate to each other by applying real-life examples to help explain that art is necessary for science purposes.
- I do believe art is an essential for science. From personal experience, seeing helps me learn. If there was just audio in this world, there would be such a chunk that we were missing. For example, when explaining how to give directions on how to put a bike together, it helps to have visuals to learn. Everyone learn different. In comparison, Pinker talks about Scientism, he says, “Scientism…including open debate, peer review, and double-blind methods are explicitly designed to circumvent the errors and sins to which scientists…become vulnerable.” This explains how we need something other than just pure science and science itself cannot be truly defined without some kind of attached to it. The two compare by giving a kind of interpretation for how the science should be viewed.
