Difference Between Science and Art

Posted on July 21, 2011 by koshal Last updated on: March 16, 2015

Science vs Art

The difference between science and art stems from the nature of the subjects
studied. Now, it seems so easy and almost natural to believe in the dichotomy of
subjects between science and art and label a subject as belonging to science or arts
stream. We know which are the subjects belonging to science stream and which are
those belonging to arts stream. Though times are changing, and there is
advancement everywhere, there were cultures where science subjects were believed
to be good for boys while girls were considered suitable for art subjects. We know
this much, and perhaps much more, but when it comes to delineating the differences
between science and art streams, most of us draw a blank. In fact it is a dilemma of
sorts for boys and girls after they pass their 10+2 exam to choose between science
and art streams. This article, by attempting to differentiate between science and art,
hopes to help such students. We will try to understand the difference between
science and arts via some examples too.

What is Science?
Science is a theoretical subject that studies the environment around us including the
creatures living there. It studies how everything functions and how something comes
into being. Let us go to an activity that can help you to understand what science is.
Give molecules of oxygen and hydrogen and provide all facilities to make these
molecules interact according to a set procedure to make water. You will see that
every person who attempts to make water must follow the same procedure;
otherwise he cannot hope to make water from hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
What we can understand from this experiment is this. If we have the same input and
same procedure to achieve an output, the output will always be the same, uniform,
and standardized. This is science, and this is the process through which we get
standardized products around the world.

If we think about everything in a practical form, all things are science. This is
because even the beautiful green leaf that is there on a tree is not added to it just to
add beauty to the environment. It is there to provide food to the tree
through photosynthesis. However, the greatest of scientists and mathematicians who
had a vision and came up with novel creations were truly artists. Rest is merely
scientists as they follow what has already been said and written. A scientist tries to
justify his or her creations. The basis of justification is representation of natural
processes for a scientific creation.
Science is an explanation of things natural that we can see and hear or feel. Our
forefathers did not know the truth behind lightening and they got frightened or
associated it with supernatural powers. But, as a courtesy of science, especially
principles of physics, we know all that goes behind lightening as a natural process.
This does not mean those phenomena that cannot be explained through science do
not exist. What science cannot explain today remains in the realms of art,
or metaphysics as it is called.

What is Art?
Art is a very free subject area where you get to observe the environment, creatures
as well as our own thoughts. We can choose to show them in whatever way we wish
to. Here are some examples to help you understand what art is all about. Give a
piece of paper, all colors and brush and ask different people to come up with a
picture of rocky mountain from a distance. You will get as many answers to the
question you posed as many people attempting to answer. This is because every
person has his own individual perception of Rocky Mountains, and thus, uses
various color mixes to come up with a picture that he feels best relates with the
original.

Provide steel, tires, engine and all internal parts and ask different persons to make a
car. You will be surprised to see as many different looking cars as there are people
accepting the challenge.

What these experiments clearly demonstrate is the fact that we can create a thing
using same input and different processes. The output is not standard and depends
upon peoples perceptions. This is what we refer to as art. There are so many
products in the market that are made using scientific principles, but we prefer those
that are made to look beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. This is where science and
art merge together in the making of a product. The car is a perfect example for that.

If we think intellectually, all things are art because even a leaf of a tree is constructed
to have a beautiful color and form that suits the environment. Every artist tries to
justify his or her creation. The basis of justification is thought in the case of an artist.

Difference Between Scientific laws and

Scientific Theories
Posted on March 29, 2011 by olivia Last updated on: March 29, 2011

Scientific laws vs Scientific Theories

Scientific law and scientific theory are common encounters when studying science
subjects. These are principles that have many similarities such as Tested
hypotheses, Support of empirical data, Wide acceptance and Help unify a field.
However, there are many differences between these two concepts also.

Scientific laws

There are many definitions of scientific laws, and here are 3 of the most widely
accepted ones.
1) It is an empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears
to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by
repeated successful testing.

2) It is a theoretical principle deducted from particular facts, applicable to a defined

group or class of phenomenon, and expressible by a statement that a particular
phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are met.

3) It is a set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical

statement.

Scientific theories

Here are a few respected definitions.

1) It is the grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about

some related group of natural phenomenon.

2) It is a body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our

understanding a major phenomenon of nature.

3) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated

by a considerable body of evidence.

Difference between Scientific laws and Scientific Theories

Reading these definitions, it appears that both scientific laws and theories are very
much similar. The major difference according to some scientists is that a law
describes what nature does under certain conditions, and also predicts what nature
will do if these conditions are met. On the other hand, a theory explains how nature
works. Another notable difference is that laws can often be explained using
mathematics, whereas theories cannot be explained mathematically. This explains
why physics and chemistry have so many laws (as they can be explained
mathematically), while biology does not have laws and has lots of theories that do
not need to be explained using mathematics.

Difference Between Science and Technology

Posted on December 18, 2010 by koshal Last updated on: January 1, 2015

Science vs Technology

When you see the terms science and technology, they are often used together, but
at some point, you must have wondered about the difference between science and
technology. Is there a difference between science and technology? Of course, there
is. If not why use two terms? The difference between these two terms can be
explained simply in the following manner. Science can be called a
systematic knowledge base developed through observation and experiment of the
structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world; Technology is the
application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. As you can see, there is a
difference in the definitions of the two. Science and Technology might appear same
when it comes to their meaning and purpose, but there is certainly some difference
between the two.

What is Science?
According to the Oxford English dictionary, science is the intellectual and practical
activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the
physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Science is also a
global activity to which everyone supports. Science is something that is ongoing.
Science is normally spoken in connection with technology in the educational
institutions. Science is about the systematic arrival of conclusion or findings. It
involves steps that establish the outcome of the findings. In short, science can be
called a systematic knowledge base. Science is a study of aspects under the various
branches such as physics, chemistry and biology. Science involves observation and
experimentation. Science is more concerned about analysis. Science deals with
theories and their findings.

What is Technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.
Technology, on the contrary, is applied science. Technology involves the use of tools
as well as knowledge for the study of a particular science. Hence, the term applied
science is used to refer technology. For example, the science of radiation can be
applied in the technology related to the development of the tools and in the
advanced study of the application of radiation. As a result, a radiation technician
works with the technology of radiation has studied the science of radiation. In the
same way, the advancement in the study of energy led to the development of
technology of solar panels that are used to generate energy and power. Thus, the
application of a particular branch of science is helpful in the development of
 technology of the particular branch. Thus, technology can be called applied science.
Technology has everything to do with synthesis of design. While science deals with
theories and findings, technology is much concerned about processes. Technology
has to get its processes right to make an advancement in the field of applied
science. Another importance difference between science and technology is the fact
that science involves observation and experimentation while technology is all about
invention and production. The invention of tools and their production are the facets of
technology.

There are two paramount differences between art and science. The first is that art is
subjective while science is objective. The second is that art expresses knowledge, most often
in the form of subjective representation, while science is the system of acquiring knowledge.
Art and science are therefore in fundamental character very dissimilar.

Science is concerned with general truths about the operation of general laws pertaining to the
physical (and quantum) world and relies on methods of study and data accumulation based on
observation and experimentation. The primary method is called the scientific method, which
not only allows for methodical knowledge collection but also allows for confirmation of
knowledge as other scientists replicate and corroborate observations, experiments, results,
and conclusions.

Art, which transcends historical and cultural features and therefore has trans-historical and
trans-cultural characteristics, is concerned with aesthetics and is said to have a relatively
"stable aesthetic core" united with perceptual properties. This definition roughly covers
varying traditionalist, conventionalist, contemporary, and functional definitions of art.
Aesthetic is a heightened sensitivity to "beauty" and "good taste."

like 2dislike 0

list Cite

dano7744 | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted on May 24, 2010 at 6:15 AM

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", art is about individual perceptions. When we look at a
painting we all see something different. In this example, images provoke emotions, art
elicits more of an emotional response, science does not. Science is more regimented with
rules, procedures, and policies to follow. When you look at a cell under the microscope you
see what you see and the next person will see the exact same thing, assuming they know what
they are looking at.

You could also look at it this way. Major league baseball pitchers use the science of physics
when they throw a curve ball, but actually throwing a good curve is an art form.
"Science provides an understanding of a
universal experience. Arts provide a universal
understanding of a personal experience." Mae
Jemison
Here is what Mae Jemison's says about her claim
(source):
The sciences, to me, are manifestations of our
attempt to express or share our understanding,
our experience, to influence the universe
external to ourselves. It doesn't rely on us as
individuals. It's the universe, as experienced by
everyone, and the arts manifest our desire, our
attempt to share or influence others through
experiences that are peculiar to us as individuals.
On a post on this website, artm gave this
explanation of the meaning of this quotation:
science explores and makes available facts about
the universe - "universal experience" in a sense
that we're all subject to experiencing them, while
arts attempt to exposing to everyone ("make
universal") those special facts that normally are
only available to a particular person.
On the same post, ChristopherE said the
following :
[..] I am not sure why we shouldn't think of
science as also aspiring to providing
understanding for everyone, and I am not sure
what to make of art that tries to capture ideal
types of things as they're experienced by
everyone. (That is, I am not so sure art
necessarily starts with the personal.)
My first question is the following: Does
Jemison's claim seem plausible to you? Does it
make sense?

What differences (and similarities) between arts

and science do you think is worth to point out?

I think that for the purpose of this question,

when using the word "science" we actually use a
word that encompass both science and
philosophy. Should we split these two notions
appart in order to make sense of Jemison's
quotation?

epistemology philosophy-of-science aesthetics

shareimprove this question edited Apr 13 at 12:42 asked Oct 23 '13 at 2:55
 Community Remi.b

1 5002513

science is sensitive to justify through experiment, but art is not li

What would you say if I told you that Musical Theorist discover
sounds we find pleasant? Neil Meyer Dec 17 '15 at 15:58

I used to think there was a difference, but now I am not so sure...

add a comment

2 Answers
activeoldestvotes

up First of all Mae Jemison talks about human creativity and how science and arts are its
vote1do two manifestations. Not the only ones, but very important ones nevertheless. Her goal,
as I understand it, is not to highlight the differences between the two, but to remind
wn vote accepted

the audience of their commonalities: their being the tools of getting to know the world
through - among other things - creativity.

Does science "[provide] an understanding of a universal

experience"?
Science ... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form
of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
(wikipedia)
Do testable explanations and predictions about the universe constitute understanding
of a universal experience? I don't see why not. Universe is our universal experience
and to explain / predict it is to understand it.
Do arts provide "a universal understanding of a personal
experience"?
This is more problematic as there is no agreement as to purpose of the arts, and even
the very definition of arts is controversial. On the other hand this lack of agreement on
meaning and purpose of the arts gives Mae free rein to endow the arts with a purpose
of her own choosing.
Compare to Dewey's views on aesthetics:
Aesthetic experience is distinguished from other imaginative experience by the fact
that the meanings embodied are especially wide and deep. Although scientific
inventions are also products of imagination, works of art do not operate in the realm
of physical existence. A work of art concentrates and enlarges immediate experience,
 directly expressing imaginatively-evoked meaning. It also encourages its audience to
carry out a similar imaginative act.
(Notice, how the arts and sciences are again mentioned together, being a two
manifestations of imaginative experience).
That immediate experience is what Mae calls personal experience. And the
encouragement of the audience to carry out a similar ... act is the arts' way to make
this experience universal.
So no, I don't disagree with the talk in general or the quotation in particular.

shareimprove this answer edited Oct 23 '13 at 8:12 answered Oct 23 '13 at 7:11

artm

618410

add a comment

up vote- I found this thread on a Google search for this thread title. Luckily I found you all
having a very tight and nice conversation.
1down
vote I think it might be worth pointing out how both of the words "arts" and "sciences" are
used. They are both used as nouns and verbs. Both as processes, and products. As well
as being thought of as two distinct philosophies, and as such- imagining groups of
adherers to these philosophies.

I think that the process of science attempts to come up with some objective truth that
can be tested and relied upon absolutely.

I rely upon the CD player to play the CD, and that the CD will retain the encoded
music that I expect it to, and not some other. It will not play someone else's music,
because of some scientific laws that have been established.

But, I cannot rely upon the music coming out of the speaker to make me feel the same
way I first heard it. Nor can i rely on those musicians, or any others, to play that music
exactly the same way again. I say that is "art".

Theoretically, a "robot musician" that uses scientifically tested hardware and software,
could play it exactly the same way every time. Further, any deliberate change to that
hardware or software, would produce a predictable and reliable result. I say that is
"science".

I hope this adds to the conversation, and does not derail it!

shareimprove this answer answered Feb 8 '15 at 16:42

 user2561086

add a comment