Re: Histology as a science or an art.?

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:Phyllis Davie <>
To:"Histonet" <>
Date:Wed, 14 Apr 99 01:04:01 -0700
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Wow, for a scientific field, there seems to be a lot of people with a 
grim and dreary idea of what science is.  Who says that when you view 
things with a sense of wonder, that you have left the realm of science 
and entered the realm of art?  Taking joy in the beauty of the workings 
of the world doesn't mean you are being non-scientific.  And how 
depressing to view science as a mind-numbing plodding along, where if 
things work all the time you need to feel you are missing out on all the 

>Dear Barry,
>    I agree with your artfull analysis of both Russ and Histology as art.  
>Just joking Russ....
>   Here is a quote for you out of my favorite book the Theory & Practice 
>of Histotechnology, by Sheehan, second edition, page 79.  "Microtomy is an 
>art."  There, it's in print, therefore is true, I think.  Sarah
>Sarah Christo, HT (ASCP)
>Texas A&M University
>College of Veterinary Medicine
>Dept. of Vet. Anatomy & Public Health
>College Station, TX  77868-4458
>>>> "Barry Rittman" <> 04/13 1:19 PM >>>
>        suspect that you have been sampling the local brew or have been
>exposed to too much  rugby (incidently, I am not sure if you regard rugby
>as a science or art!).
>There is of course art in science and science in art. Although you say
>that you do not necessarily need training to enjoy or perform art this is
>usually not true for most individuals. There are of course born singers
>etc.but for the vast majority of us there are progressive levels of
>understanding up to which we can be raised by a more knowledgeable
>individual be they artist or scientist or both.  As someone pointed out
>earlier, art and science are inextricably interwoven. I think that if you
>examine the lives of most of the famous scientists you will see that they
>usually had as much interest in art as in the science for which they were
>famous and in some instances it was chance that they ended up in science.
>You just have to look at Leonardo's anatomic drawings and his decriptions
>to appreciate both the art and the science. While science may be held up
>as a more logical discipline, art often distills the essence of subjects
>and may be used to provide a simpler concept to grasp. Picasso's dove for
>example, has 5 or 6 lines to it and while not a photographic
>representation of the dove it provides the grace and spirit of the dove.
>In many instances science is so tied with minutia that it loses sight of
>the broad picture. Art may bring us back to reality.  I  can remember many
>instances where scientific problems have been solved by a non-scientist
>(such as an artist) looking at a photograph with a fresh perspective.
>You live in a beautiful part of the UK, get outside, appreciate the
>natural art that is there and ignore Darwin for a moment.
>> Cannot agree with art and science being the same! Three main reasons:
>> 1You do not necessarily need any educating or training in the subject
>> to enjoy, or even perform, art.  Singers are born with a gift, just
>> like ball-players.  so are those who can draw.  Sure most of us can
>> do a bit with tuition and training.
>> 2 People in arts and science can discuss arts with equal intellect and
>> knowledge.  Arts people cannot discuss science without specialist
>> knowledge (and, probably, training)
>> 3 Science is like an ever expanding pyramid.  It is all built on
>> knowledge that has been established before (and that really means
>> established, not guessed or opined).  The essence of science is to try
>> and disprove a hypothesis or theory.  Art is like it or not.
>> Two different things - reality and abstract, fact and figmentation
>> There speaks a self-opinionated scientist (I hope!)
>> ps, I like art.
>> pps I love science
>> Russ Allison, Wales

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>