"If you have no talent for science, do not bother. Leave it to the other guy." "This is not for you." We would never say this to a talentless painter. There is something intrinsic in the method that is human.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I like that idea. Both science and art are creative endeavors in which observations are synthesized into something new. The primary difference being that science provides insight into the world around us, while art looks inwards.
-
I like that distinction!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Science concerns itself with facts about the natural world, with objectivity. Art concerns itself with aesthetic and emotion, with subjectivity. Art is often used to communicate science, just as science is so often used to communicate art, but their goals are opposed.
-
Art like language is a communicator and science is an agreed upon universal process - the best we have yet come up with - to define the material world. What makes good art is debatable since it's very much subjective, what makes good science by contrast is not.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.