The Natural Sciences And The Arts

1179 WordsSep 2, 20145 Pages
People often argue about what constitutes progress, and things that some regard as progress other consider to not be progress at all. In my opinion it is the development towards an improved or more advanced condition. However what I perceive something to be could be biased due to my beliefs and value system, this is a limitation which must be considered when discussing progress in reference to the natural sciences and the arts. Reason and imagination play an important role in both understanding and comparing progress in the natural sciences and the arts but, while the imaginative insights of a scientist must ultimately be provable, those of artists need only to be reasonable. The interactions between these ways of knowing vary between the natural sciences and the arts, therefore the definition of progress will differ in each area of knowledge. Similarly the natural sciences can be seen as more reliable, although it relies on observations rather than reason, it is considered more dependable than that of the arts which focuses heavily on the expression of a person’s emotions or opinions. Furthermore, the degree to which science is seen as an authoritative area of knowledge should be considered when unpacking this title. The title seems to suggest that significant progress can only be made in science, and that within the arts this is not possible. Because the title relies on the assumption that progress does not exist in the arts, it is biased (natural science is the
Open Document