Re: Histology as a science or an art.?

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:Karen S Pawlowski <>
To:Barry Rittman <>
Date:Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:00:02 -0500 (CDT)
Content-Type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ditto! (That's I strongly agree, for all of those unfamiliar with the

Karen Pawlowski

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Barry Rittman wrote:

> Russ,
>         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.
> Barry
> > 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 >>