Is Science more Attractive to the Human Mind?

Humans have a tradition of seeking explanations for the world’s workings; we have been searching for answers to limitless questions for thousands of years. One of the primary means of explanation has been the sciences. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.: all provide humans with effective ways to rationalize the world. Since humans long for simplicity over complexity, they will naturally be more attracted to concrete answers rather than abstract ideas. This is where the arts meet difficulties in mainstream acceptance. While science gives facts, evidence, laws, and theorems, laid out and accepted by the majority, art presents us with abstract ideas and interpretation. Even the most straightforward of paintings may be interpreted in different ways.

The problem of individual interpretation separates art from science, but in some ways unifies them as well. Many refined practices in science are referred to as “arts” and involve interpretation. Humans decide what to take away from scientific data, just as they do from a painting. Also, human error is not unknown from science. As Lehrer’s quote points out, no measurement can be perfect. This is due to a combination of human error as well as inability; humans do not possess the ability to measure absolutely perfectly, as the decimal point being measured to can never extend to the infinity mark required for perfection.

One thought on “Is Science more Attractive to the Human Mind?”

Comments are closed.