---

by The Noid
(quotes)
I can't imagine any civilization at all without the invention of... say... they wheel?

---

The Incas spring immediately to mind.

---

Which do you prefer/ are you better at?

---

I'm probably naturally better at science or especially maths-based subjects. Generally, I prefer studying arts.

---

Do you think one group of subjects is more useful/valid than another?

---

In such broad terms, I can't think of an answer to that question.

Actually, to a large extent, I'd say academic subjects of any kind are less immediately useful than training (another distinction which came up in the other thread ) for a particular application. I'm a programmer, although I have no formal education of any kind in the subject, and was basically trained on the job. While I often feel I'm hindered by lack of a theoretical background to what I'm doing, I don't often find it interferes with my productivity.

---

In what ratio should they be taught in schools?

---

It's a tricky one. I feel everyone could probably benefit from a basic knowledge of both sides. The bigger problem comes with deciding when and how much you allow people to specialise..

---

by White Hart
(quotes)

I think that the distinction is a fairly recent one.

---

Well, there have only been distinct degree subjects for, what, less than 200 years?

The thing about art is that its all about interpretation whereas science is more about facts.

(Edited by Biff 06/04/2002 14:17)

---

by Biff
The thing about art is that its all about interpretation whereas science is more about facts.

---

It's dependent on having the right facts and all the facts, just as any subject is. There's just as much interpretation and theorising. The difference is, in science there is the possibility of verifying a 'correct' answer, and only a possibility. Data must be interpreted by flawed human beings and can only be tested by experiments designed by other flawed human beings.

I find this whole divide between science and art as being misleading, inaccurate and utterly divisive. It is also tied up with that other over-used cut of Occam's Razor, the whole subject-object divide.

The first problem is the inherent value statement of the divide between arts and science. What is basically being said is that art is a subjective issue (eye of the beholder, individual interpretation, cultural relativism, etc) whereas science is seen as a purely objective pursuit, with no place for subjectivity.

Yet those scientific facts change their nature, appearance and relevance from era to era. What is fact now was not a hundred years ago. And vice-versa. What has changed is perspective, not the universe. Science is as essentially subjective as the arts are. You name any aspect of the body of thought called science and there are two living scientists with polar opposite theories.

Secondly, many of the skills are identical. History is considered an art subject. Yet any historian worth their salt spends their days researching their subject and testing theories. Sounds like science to me. More obvious arts are no different. When I write, I research my subject. I look at what is known about the subject, I investigate different methodologies for applying that knowledge, and try to create a self-coherent and accessible end product. This is again no different from science.

Then there is the purpose of art and science. What do I want from art? I want many things. Most obviously, I want entertainment. I want to be taken away from drudgery and boredom. I want it therefore to improve my quality of life. But I also want it, on occasion, to inform me. Or challenge me. I want to find self expression and realization. I want a song that makes me go 'I'm not alone'. I want a book that makes me think. I want a film that makes me forget how much I hate my boss. I want to create so I can say to everyone else 'welcome to my world'. And I want to make enough money from it to quit the day job.

What do I want from science? The same things. I want technology that makes life more pleasant, either by making art more accessible, or by reducing my workload/risk of ill health. I want to find theories that explain observed behaviour. I want it to challenge my preconceptions, to make me think. I want it to help me find meaning in the essentially meaningless (existence).

Neither is superior to the other. The divide is artificial.

Very well said JayJay.

Personally it bugs me that people consider that if you're a techy/scientist you have no imagination, creativity or appreciation for art. My strengths are definately technical, but I am also creative, imaginative (a touch too imaginative..), and consider myself an aesthete.

I refrain from using the phrase "The Arts" when talking about art, because usually "The Arts" refers to quite a restricted set of what I consider to be art. I think art takes form in many, many ways, and for example I would consider that computer programming can be an art.

Anyone who understands the subject, can understand, how an individual can craft code which is like no one elses, which uses their creativity in providing a solution to a problem, and whose solution is unusually elegant. Its a craft like any other.

---

by Funky Monkey
I think art takes form in many, many ways, and for example I would consider that computer programming can be an art.

---

Agreed. That is not the same as saying the end result is art though.

---

Anyone who understands the subject, can understand, how an individual can craft code which is like no one elses, which uses their creativity in providing a solution to a problem, and whose solution is unusually elegant. Its a craft like any other.

---

Again, true. However, I would also say that computer code is primarily functional - the end user doesn't know or care how elegantly the code is written (except that this may mean it runs faster), or even what language it is written in. From an aesthetical point of view, it is the user interface of the final program which is important, and I would say that much of the best-written code is sorely lacking in this respect.

---

by Jayjay

Neither is superior to the other. The divide is artificial.

---

Which was more or less what I was waiting for someone to say.

But it being an artificial divide does not make the question worthless. I find the fact that people make the divide interesting. How did it arise? My parents certainly had to choose between one set of subjects and another at A-Level (was this for ease of time-tabling? Was it wide-spread? Did many people find it constricting? My parents didn't. My mother couldn't cope with science, my father didn't see the point in studying the arts; but do they think this because they knew they would do one or the other?)

I digress. The difference has become pronounced at university, where the subject you study should automatically dictate which side you're on. You should see the other English students run when I tell them that maths is beautiful Or the respect I acquire instantly from scientists when they find out that I took 3 science A-Levels. Even now, when people are not confined in their choices, the pattern of division arises.

---

by Demona
My parents certainly had to choose between one set of subjects and another at A-Level (was this for ease of time-tabling? Was it wide-spread? Did many people find it constricting? My parents didn't. My mother couldn't cope with science, my father didn't see the point in studying the arts; but do they think this because they knew they would do one or the other?)

---

I've just finished reading Lorna Sage's autobiography (she was Professor of English at UEA until she died a couple of years ago). She describes her time at grammar school in the 50s and mentions how girls did 'general science' until O-Level, and then if they were scientific might be allowed to go to the boys' school to study A-Level Physics and Chemistry. Something like that automatically puts women on a back foot with science.

I know that when I was choosing A-Levels the college tended to discourage people from picking a disparate range of subjects because of the supporting roles subjects taken together could play. While this is a valid point is does push people one way or another, as do universities' entry guidelines.

Demona, I certainly didn't wish to suggest that the question was worthless, just that the answer wasn't a or b. And if you hadn't asked the question I wouldn't have got to spout off, which is clearly something I enjoy doing.

How did the divide arise? Anyone who knows better please say so, but I believe it dates back to Aristotle, who was obsessed with pigeon holing and categorizing everything. I believe the term I'm looking for here is 'anal-retentive'. It has since been utilized to reify science as somehow superior to all other pursuits, as somehow more 'real' than other disciplines.

As for schools, pushing students to study either 'arts' or 'science' is pretty much across the board, as far as I am aware. There is a dominant assumption in our society that you can only be good at one of these and not the other. At GCSE my best subjects were Maths and English. At A-Level it was not acceptable for anyone to take both of these, so I took the science route. Quite happily at the time, as I believed the divide was valid and wanted to specialise in Maths/Physics. It was only later that I realized how artificial that divide was, and how much I enjoyed subjects like History and Philosophy, and picked up a pen (or word-processor) and started writing again.

It seems to me that we, as a society, have become obsessed with specialization. Everyone has to specialize; yet some people are more suited to bringing common strands from different disciplines together. There is a place for specialization, and a place for the 'jack-of-all-trades'. And I think we'll find it easier to get the balance right if we stop thinking of science as somehow special and different from other subjects.

---

by Jayjay
Demona, I certainly didn't wish to suggest that the question was worthless, just that the answer wasn't a or b. And if you hadn't asked the question I wouldn't have got to spout off, which is clearly something I enjoy doing.

---

I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying watching you spout off

---

As for schools, pushing students to study either 'arts' or 'science' is pretty much across the board, as far as I am aware. There is a dominant assumption in our society that you can only be good at one of these and not the other. At GCSE my best subjects were Maths and English. At A-Level it was not acceptable for anyone to take both of these, so I took the science route. Quite happily at the time, as I believed the divide was valid and wanted to specialise in Maths/Physics. It was only later that I realized how artificial that divide was, and how much I enjoyed subjects like History and Philosophy, and picked up a pen (or word-processor) and started writing again.

It seems to me that we, as a society, have become obsessed with specialization. Everyone has to specialize; yet some people are more suited to bringing common strands from different disciplines together. There is a place for specialization, and a place for the 'jack-of-all-trades'. And I think we'll find it easier to get the balance right if we stop thinking of science as somehow special and different from other subjects.

---

I hadn't realised some schools still forced specialisation. I thought we were actively encouraged to study a broad range of subjects, but maybe I'm remembering my parents' advice, and not the schools'. Regardless, were certainly weren't expected to take either arts or sciences (despite some jocular disparagement of studying 'made up things' by my chemistry teacher, himself a highly imaginative man who used his imagination in science.)

I'm not sure as a society that we emphasise specialisation, at least not in secondary education. I thought part of the point of the AS Level system was to encourage an increased range of subjects (entirely the wrong way to go about it, but anyway...).

---

by Demona
I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying watching you spout off

---

Thanks for the compliment.

---

by Demona
I hadn't realised some schools still forced specialisation

---

Well, it is over ten years since I was last at high school...

Yes, I do think we over specialize, especially in this country. If you compare the syllabus of your average American student to your average Brit's, and you can see a huge difference. Where your average Physics student will probably attend classes on Maths, General Physics and some form of specialization, our American counter-part is also expected to attend courses on Philosophy and History.

Further, look at our modern intellectual heroes. They are all people who have mastered one subject, or more truthfully one very specialized area of that subject. We have trouble enough with artists who release novels as well as songs, or take up acting. Never mind someone who took an interest in science as well. The only art form that actively encourages an interest in science is Hard SF. If I say that I can see beauty in the writings of Voltaire, Mill, as well as the music of Pink Floyd and Robbie Williams, or a well written piece of code or a coherent theory on space-time creation, then the looks I will get are a little off putting to say the least.

I can't say much on AS levels as I never took one, nor knew anyone who took them seriously. We still have a culture that asks 'how will this help me get a job' rather than stopping to think 'how will this enrich me'. I'm not saying the first concern is irrelevant, but that it should not be our only concern. Or even necessarily our primary one.

I have a fond memory of being back at Uni (as a physics student) and commenting to a friend of mine (a history student) that I'd just finished Machiavelli's The Prince. His immediate response was astonishment, as there was no way it could possibly have been on my courses recommended reading list. Then again he got a first and I dropped out...

---

by JayJay
I have a fond memory of being back at Uni (as a physics student) and commenting to a friend of mine (a history student) that I'd just finished Machiavelli's The Prince. His immediate response was astonishment, as there was no way it could possibly have been on my courses recommended reading list.

---

I know that feeling. I was reading a Brief History of Time during my Art foundation course. They looked at me like i was nuts

I like surprising people like that and disproving steriotypes

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

Yes, I do think we over specialize, especially in this country. If you compare the syllabus of your average American student to your average Brit's, and you can see a huge difference. Where your average Physics student will probably attend classes on Maths, General Physics and some form of specialization, our American counter-part is also expected to attend courses on Philosophy and History.

---

---

Further, look at our modern intellectual heroes. They are all people who have mastered one subject, or more truthfully one very specialized area of that subject.

---

Yes, but isn't that because it's harder to reach excellence in more than one field? Not through want of talent in more than one area, but because inevitably time then becomes split between diciplines.

Part of the reason American universities can have minors is the extra college year, though admittedly two years rather than three are spent on their major.

---

by Demona
Yes, but isn't that because it's harder to reach excellence in more than one field? Not through want of talent in more than one area, but because inevitably time then becomes split between diciplines.

---

But, this is my point. I have nothing against specialization. I agree that to really push the boundaries of knowledge we need people to do that. What I want is for this to not be the only option. We should encourage people to find their talent, and for some people this lies in specialization, whereas for others it's in general study.

I just want parity for both approaches, not a dominance of either. At the moment I just feel that some people are not realizing their true potential because of a blinkered view of specialization and the artificial divide between arts and sciences.