Science is Boring, Creativity is Stupid!…uh-whaaauh? (Part II of II)
“Science” isn’t a stable or single idea
In my previous article “Science is Boring, Creativity is Stupid!…uh-whaaauh? (part I) — The brain is a Wi-Fi system for ideas” I discussed how, healthy and fair thinking, open access journals have the power of leading young people to become more familiar by publishing your work as well as young people having the opportunity to interact with your published scientific research. And, you becoming more transparent simply by means of you, as a scientific pioneer, stop working in this stuffy and cramped tunnel.
I also mentioned that, like yourself, science is not limiting itself to grids, formulas and PowerPoint presentations. Showing young people how your creative thinking has lead you in solving the problems you encountered during your research, is of most importance. Why? Because, and perhaps you might remember this from your own study time, most young people are immensely overwhelmed by the scope of their future they desperately want with no concept of where to begin. In this they need you, your expertise, experiences and enthusiasm as a role model.
Our future scientists not only need to learn how to defend their thesis or how to speak about their published paper. They don’t need to learn ‘how’ to think, they need to understand that it is perfectly fine to make mistakes and then conduct new experiments within their hypotheses in a most free and creative manner what fundamentally changes how they solve problems today and in the future.
But, even though most mentors are walking this ‘boxed path’ what is separating ‘art and science’, these two mediums both look at the world around us. They are just showing us potential experimental research in a different way. Art on one side as more an emotional approach to the world whereas science has a more rational approach to the world. But there are rules about observing and experimenting which should be rules that anyone can follow. That notion of anyone being able to be a scientist in their own field of interest, is super important.
Did you know that a lot of contemporary scientists have, so to speak, three Latin words ‘tattooed’ on their arms? NULLIUS IN VERBA “on no one’s word…” This is a strong, historical idea what explains that you should not believe ‘something’ just because someone tells you it’s true. Instead, you should test out each new hypothesis, or educated guess, yourself. In other words: your individual proof of how some natural phenomenon works should be something that anyone can reproduce.
What’s the difference? Is there a difference?
So, when did we separate art and science what provided us the opportunity to obtain a Bachelor of art or a Bachelor of science? Are we allowed to say that we can thank Aristotle for that? Well, for Aristotle only human beings, who alone have rationality, are capable of engaging in productive science. A bird which builds a nest is merely acting according to its instincts, and not at all according to reason and scientific knowledge. Thus, only human beings can engage in productive science, and create a product through the utilization of theoretical knowledge.
Personally, I think he had it all wrong but, unfortunately, we have based our whole approach to modern education on that miss perception.
Is there really a difference between a mind contemplating the relationship of light and mass and, a mind contemplating the relationship of light and shadows? Hey, Einstein, among others, used about all this stuff. He realized that the most beautiful thing we can experience is “the mysterious source of all true art and science”.
An artistically view of the science
It’s soooo easy to sit in an armchair and create these imaginary worlds in where art and science are fundamentally different and obey your rules instead of the rules of the universe.
But if you bother to get up out of your armchair and actually paint a picture, compose a piece of music, solve an Equation, write a ballet, discover a star, write a poem, engage in scientific discovery, you know then it becomes apparent…you have merged art and science. So, to all the people who find it necessary to rule out creativity and pull up walls between art and science, I would like to say ‘nonsense’! It is not a waste of time.
Too many people think the relationship of science and art is flat because we learn about it on micro-thin megapixel mass media driven flat screens, aka your laptop. So, how can these intersections be used to represent the complexity and the relationship between art and science?
Imagine a world in where scientists use their senses to understand complex data in a way textbooks say it should be viewed and calculated. It is frustrating as well as it is well known these days that mathematical data doesn’t always fit neatly on those bar graphs and pie charts you became familiar with in high school.
Now imagine a world in where scientists seek to understand that same complex data but now on an artistic level, a perceptual level. I am talking about understanding data by looking at it as if you are walking through it, touching it, smelling it, feeling it. An immersive 3D virtual world of scientific data experienced whereby the ones and zeros are dancing on the musical waves of the universe. And this form of collaboration between art and science may be very well the only way to approach the understanding of the complexity of the universe.
Think about it, could Leonardo have painted the Mona Lisa without inquiry into the science of the human anatomy? And, physiology miss Potter, could she have written and illustrated Peter Rabbit without lifelong studies and drawings of natural science. Does DNA really look like that or is what we see in our minds like a 3D sculptural, or holographic, representation of what it might look like?
This world in where we think what others think or worse, what others want us to think has separated the brilliant minds of the out-of-the-box thinking scientists and artists. Are they the last laboratories of true creativity in this, by the media driven, world you have become so familiar with?
Again I ask you, is there really a difference between a mind contemplating the relationship of light and mass and, a mind contemplating the relationship of light and shadow?
Picture your path and you’ll own the outcome
Whether it be in the classroom or in our personal life’s, we all encounter problems on our path of experience, some of them are trivial and easily dealt with. But what about the tough ones like wanting to change your career or starting an organization that’s going to focus on the environment or working with your community to solve some injustice?
Many people would let the scope of those challenges stop them but I can assure you, it is worth your effort to focus on. It is sad to see but, these days everyone wants ‘one-click solutions’ to life. Moreover, they want someone else to solve their problems. But they are your problems to solve and your rewards to earn.
Science and art, they both should be vividly and tangible present in the classroom while collaborating in this quest for seeking an understanding truth and the relationship of truth to humankind.
Therefore I encourage both young people and scientists to challenge their brilliant minds and create an all-encompassing theory of everything. A compelling theory that not only explains the everything of science but also explains the everything of arts. Because in our modern groups and culture the artist and the scientist may be the last souls on Earth who are the true autonomous thinkers.
