The similarities and differences between the sciences Essay Example For Students

The similarities and differences between the sciences Essay During the course of this essay, I Will attempt first to criticism science and scientists and show the arrogant assumptions that are made about science. Will then discuss the similarities between arts and sciences in the light of my criticisms, and finally look closely at the many differences between arts and sciences. There are several different criticisms that have been commonly leveled at science and scientists as a whole. Shall begin by attempting to identify these criticisms and identifying the reasoning behind each of them. The first of these criticisms is that science has been given similar status to a elision. It was commonly thought in the early days of science that science would eventually develop a theory for everything, thereby replacing religion through removing the ambiguous and the incomprehensible parts to elite with which religion dealt, In many ways science has replaced religion in the 21st century, as it has become the object of faith and even devotion. A blind faith has been placed in the unquestionable correctness of science and scientific research. It avgas Mile Druthers who first advanced the theory that given enough time, science would replace all traditional religions to be replaced by formal, unquestionable religion based upon science. It is the arrogance of many scientists that leads us to believe that scientific theories are facts, and can be treated as truth replacing religion by explaining the facts behind the creation and existence Of the world. The problem With this belief that science is unquestionable fact and can be treated in a similar way to a religion is twofold. First, scientific theories are advanced through observation and experimentation, these theories can never be proved entirely correct since they are based only on certain observations, as the full facts can never be known, a theory can only e said to be correct in so far as it is correct from the observations made given the facts available. Secondly, science and religion can never be directly linked since they do not overlap in any shape or form, Science deals with the physical, religion with the insubstantial. In their very essence the two are diametrically opposed to one another and cant be compared, In short, science deals with the how, religion, the why. Although science attempts to understand the world around us, how it was created and how we and other creatures came to exist, it can never fully explain the automated human search tort a higher being. There seems to be a desire within humans to believe in something larger and greater than that which is visible and physical, something science can never explain. For this reason, science can never replace religion, as it simply does not explain enough. Its explanations tall tar short of what would be needed to satisfy human curiosity. Religion, in general, does a much better job of explaining what needs to be explained about human nature. However, Scientists in recent years hue attempted to give their work a status of being unquestionably correct. As have already explained, the truth of science r the correctness or Otherwise Of a given theory can never be entirely proved. A theory can only be proved correct in so far as it is correct given a certain set Of facts, and Without having all the facts available, a theory can never be given the status of absolute fact, and consequently, no scientific theory can ever be proved, although it can be proved false through further research. However, this strong criticism of science can be taken even further. Karl Popper put forward the theory that scientific facts of the present day are simply probabilities, and only hold this status until such time as new evidence emerges allowing the hero to be dropped or adapted. Thomas Kuhn took this criticism of scientists even further, he believed that scientists, for the vast majority of the time, went to great lengths to fit their experiments to already existing theories, or when new information was taken into account, and it was simply accommodated by existing theories rather than new theories being created. Kuhn went tether in his criticism; he claimed that when new theories were advanced, it was normally due to a competition between two scientists. Eventually, one theory would emerge victorious, however, this emergence, claimed Kuhn, had little to do with he correctness or otherwise of the theory and more to do with the political connections and status of the scientists involved in the battle. Aberdeen takes his criticism of the methodology of science to the extreme and claims that the scientific experiments are not based on observation of facts, but interpretation of vat was seen. Essay On Jefferson EssaySimilarly, the brain Of a painter may interpret a beautiful sunset through the eyes and hence the painter Will paint an image based upon his perception. The historian, in a similar way to the way in which a scientist analyses his collected data, will analyses the facts that are presented to him in order to come up with a theory. In this way the many similarities between the sciences and arts as intellectual disciplines can be seen clearly, they are all ultimately reliant on perception and interpretation. Therefore, it can be assumed that although scientists attempt to distance homeless from and repute any claims that science as a discipline is subject any form of human error and instead attempt to give the impression that scientists are meticulous, rational, careful, observant and prepared to check and recheck theories until it is certain that they are correct, they are in fact as subject to human creativity and capability to make errors as their artistic counterparts, It is this reliance upon humanity in the discipline of science that makes it so similar to the arts in its ability to make assumptions and mistakes. However, despite all of this criticism, it is difficult to compare sciences and arts erectly as they are evidently a considerably different in their very essence as they essentially deal with entirely different concepts, and all though some Of the analysis and observation skills are common to both sorts of discipline the two are in many ways diametrically opposed to one another. Essentially, science is intent upon understanding that which exists in the world around us, whereas the arts are more concerned With interpretation Of that same world. This fundamental emphasis that science places upon understanding may rely upon hurrah observation and inspiration and therefore involve and element of human interpretation, but ultimately is far more concerned with looking closely at the already existing interrelations between two things and upon close scrutiny, an interpretation can be made that can explain for the most part a complex interrelationship. On the other hand, the arts will not delve below the surface and look at the very fundamentals of life itself and break this down through complex analytical processes, instead the arts are concerned with that which exists in a different way. The arts are far more concerned with an appreciation of that which is perceived, and an interpretation tooth same. For example, instead of breaking down a wheat field into many stalks of wheat composed of a stems, composed of vascular bundles and pith etc, an painter or poet will simply look at the beauty of the field in its entirety and write about or paint a picture of what he sees. In conclusion, the sciences and arts have much in common; they are essentially dependent on the human imagination for inspiration. The creative influence of the human mind exerts a powerful influence over both intellectual disciplines, and scientific theories can be considered just as dependent upon this creative factor as the artistic disciplines. However, it can be said that in many ways science is more concerned by observation Of facts reducing the scope for creativity after the initial idea. The scientific may not be able to suppress entirely his creative, artistic side but this is certainly less apparent in the scientist than in the artist. The scientist must be objective and look at everything as impartially as is humanly possible, rather than letting himself be swayed by What he expects or wants to happen. It is obvious that there is a certain element of bias is all scientific theories, but this is less apparent than with the artistic disciplines, here the artist has total control over how he portrays a given instance or scene and what bias he personally has. Sciences and arts separate essentially in what they deal with as a discipline, Science is essentially concerned with understanding, whereas the arts are more concerned with perception. This is the fundamental difference been the sciences and arts as intellectual disciplines, and although there are many comparisons to be drawn between to two intellectual disciplines due to their common dependence upon the frailties and faults of human nature, they are never the less essentially different in what they concentrate on,