Dear Mr. Mahamad Nabab Alam,

One cannot compare these two. Science which is related to knowledge of the physical world, Whereas, Art is creativity, skillfulness and individual talent capacity on sequences of learned knowledge. 

Dear Mr. Mahamad Nabab Alam,

One cannot compare these two. Science which is related to knowledge of the physical world, Whereas, Art is creativity, skillfulness and individual talent capacity on sequences of learned knowledge. 

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

• Scientists deal with knowledge of the physical world, i.e., mathematics, astronomy, biology, geology, energy, gravity, bugs, trees, flowers, birds, fish etc.
• Artists deal with knowledge and intellectual creativity, i.e, music, art, sculpture, woodworking, quilting, glass works, pottery, weather prediction, doctor skills, and other crafts. They utilize and perfect their individual talents.

The word "art" is derived from the Latin "ars" and related to the Greek "techne," the root of "technology" and "technique." Artists, in the old sense, are technicians and skilled makers-of-things. What we know today as "Art," or "fine art," is a meaning that is only about 300 years old.

Science itself has a long history also dating back to classical times, but it really only established itself as a major social force in the Enlightenment, also about 300 years ago.

So this question of the difference between artists and scientists is a pretty new one and is constantly undergoing change. The notion that scientific process is a methodology for arriving at knowledge in a systematic and empirical manner is quite new. It was not until the mid 1930s that Karl Popper introduced the now famous requirement that scientific experiments should be "falsifiable." In other words, for a theory or idea to be considered in a scientific manner, it had to be possible to disprove. Science itself proves nothing. It can only show things to be false and, through a process of elimination, arrive at a good guess of truth.

So what is the difference between an artist and a scientist? I am beginning to think that it has something to do with the certainty, the definitiveness and the precision of science. An artist may make a good life out of being vague or ambiguous. There is no need for an artist to produce an answer. A scientist must really try to say exactly what they mean (hence the popularity of the mathematical language in their world). An artist can play with rhetoric. His work can misdirect, pull a hoaxes—he can make and publish and be recognized for the quality of his jokes.

Dear @Mahamad, let me bring related threads where I have took part.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/To_what_extent_is_science_an_art_and_hence_like_a_religion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_science_and_art

Any good science is also an art. On the contrary, this is not true :-)

There are two paramount differences between art and science.

The first is that art is subjective while science is objective.

The second is that art expresses knowledge, most often in the form of subjective representation, while science is the system of acquiring knowledge.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/deference-between-art-science-172919

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/science-vs-art-differences-similarities-10880.html

Both are vital for those who are able to notice all the beauty in them.

The American education tradition is firmly rooted in liberal arts and the sciences, though increasingly calls are being made for STEM education. Whether this comes from economic concerns or from purely educational ones, they don't want science at the exclusion of art.

http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-the-importance-of-art-and-science

Science is for whole body, while art is for soul

SCIENCE & ARTS are the twin areas where the growth development & culture work in uniforms .With this the development of scientific & technological development including electronic fast moving line which have now our world smaller place & mobility between the fast distance places become the history of the past .

Science as a mission working with the brain & making experiment in laboratory for the research program which is equally useful to the human beings.In this line the ART to move with the footsteps of science become awkward .

ART has sophistication brings  all round knowledge of the different areas for the human beings as a hole in the form of literature covering all the subject which human beings are interested ,anxious ,for their growth & development .To add the fragrance for the human beings ,painting ,music ,drama ,& such other related form of activities of her the creation of cultural environment .

With this we do not wish to place the important area of science in the backward seat .Electronic programming activities including computer,mobile ,DVD ,TV ,VIDEO GAME & such other forms make the family as one unit as  a program becomes the household entertainment .

Besides Mobile bring young generation to join in proximity with their far distance,friends & associated groups .This is equally one of the most important family & cultural associated group.

In this light we wish SCIENCE & ART should join both hand together.

This is my personal opinion 

Dear Mahamad Nabab Alam you have actually answered your question. You said  ART and SCIENCE the two faces of modern world coin. If one face is destroyed, the coin loses its value. Hence, I think both are essential and both deserve equal credit.

Well said Mr. Santosh KUMAR Rana, the two are inseparable and really needed for the development.

I wouldn't make the distinction that art is for the soul and science for the body. Both are an expression of the Human nature: the ability to question what surrounds us, the curiosity,  the creation of things non essential for the survival of the species. When we "waste" time solving a mathematical or a physical problem (and feeling pleasure while doing it) or making a sculpture, or writing a poem, we going against the pure logic of survival, and that is exactly the good part of being Human. It is what defines us as a specie.

Science is  objective, experimental, rational, unbiased while art is subjective, open ended, emotional.  Science explains the natural phenomena occurring in the universe but science does not explain emotional phenomenon such as why people happy or cry. However,  art connects the inner expressions of the artists with the outside world. In My Opinion, both sciences and art  are  part of coin for  development of human being.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship."

                                                                 – Robert A. Heinlein

Hello, 

Science and arts are two major factors for the "Evolution". Arts are more related to artistic creation. Science is related to knowledge and applying that knowledge. Both distincts complement each other. (We need both) 

I think both can be treated as same. But we do not know the science of art, therefore, we treat them different.The origin of both manifestations are same.

Art and Science are two sides of the same coin. As the existence of a coin cannot be visualized without the head and tail so is the life of the humankind. Art and Science are equally important for a meaningful life of the most evolved form of life on the planet Earth.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Art and science have their meeting point in method."

                                                          -----  Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton

Dear colleagues,

"The artist is an acute watcher of the society and can give a very rapid view of important changes occurring, while the scientific approach is unable to disentangle what is occurring, before surveys on these changes may be carried and analysed. The art can hopefully inform instantaneously the scientist on the individual life and the changes occurring in the society, and can be a source for simulations of the world in which we live.

These three approaches of human life, scientific, philosophical and artistic were mainly considered as paradoxical, while they referred to different ways of thinking. I think that it is time now to try to look at them as complementary: if their object is different, they will offer a view through different planes on human life. This will be the only way to discover the controllable operation that will permit to reproduce this view stereoscopically from these planes as the philosopher Gilles Gaston-Granger said. This volume is a first step towards such a putting together and I hope that it will permit a new global approach of human thinking."

You can read more about this paper which was unfortunately not published on my ReseachGate main page: Population science, philosophy and art.

Dear @Mahamad, science and art are both beneficial for man's development. Nowadays, multidisciplinarity/interdisciplinarity is the major approach in education, research and development.

What is the difference between SCIENCE and ART and which among the two is more beneficial for development of human being?

Science is the objective pursuit of knowledge using systematic methods based on research, observation, experimentation etc. that require more critical thinking skillset.  Art is the subjective pursuit of knowledge based on trans-culutrual & trans-historical characteristics and aesthetics which is rather subjective that require more creative thinking skills.  Since human developments are multifaceted that encompasses political, economical, social, medical, technological development along the history storyline, think both science & art are equally important / beneficial.  Unless e.g. the question is more from medical / technological perspective of human development, then science is more important / beneficial in that sense. 

I think science and art naturally overlap and they are more similar than different because both of them help us to know, understand and describe the world around us.Both of them are a means of investigation.

Art of science and science of art, benefit society equally.

Dear Ljubomir, Krishnan and Hazim,

Thank you for upvoting my answer to this question. You will find here enclosed a copy of my unpublished paper.

However you may know that I did not only favour this idea, but that I tried to apply it as you may see in my scientific, philosophic and artistic web site: http://www.courgeau.com .

Scientific work: trying to give a stereoscopical restitution of human real-life experiments, which can only be known through a plurality of paradigms.

Philosophy of science; trying to explain the nature of knowledge in social science.

Artistic world: trying to integrate the inner human life with the outer world, as a synthesis of nature and nurture.

I greatly hope that you and the other participants to this question will enjoy it!

Dear Mahamad,

Science and Art are two extremes but they do meet within the continuum in terms of human development.

SCIENCE

- Theory-based

- Systematic

- Objective

- Reliable-tested

- Validity-tested

ART

-Concept-based

- Abstract

- Creative

- Subjective

- Assumption-based

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ART

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-science-and-vs-art/

Theory vs Concept

- Science is theory-based

- Art is conceptual-based

Objectivity vs subjectivity

- Science is objective

- Art is subjective

Tested vs Non-tested

- Science can be proven

- Art cannot be proven

WHICH DESERVES MORE CREDIT

Produce vs Sell

- If Science produces computers

- It is the Artsy person who sells the computers

Doctor vs Patient

- Science makes for good Doctors

- Non-science or rather the Artsy could not makes good doctors but good patients

WHO DESERVES MORE CREDIT

- Depending on which part of the coin you are looking at. If you are the sick patient, Science would help cure your artsy soul

- If your Scientific souls are empty, Art seems a great escape for your mental strain and pain

So Mahamad, Science and Art do meet at the continuum for human development, if only for awhile.

Best regards - Mariam

I think that science and art are complementary, not competitive among them. Both ones help to the humankind in knowledge and aesthetic.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

“Both art and science are ways to see more in what you're looking at. Good art and good science both add dimensions to what you see.”

                                                              ---- Lee Anne Willson

There is no relevant difference between real ART and real SCIENCE, they are both a way to make hidden reality to come out from facts and are both based on an artisan traditional way of doing.

The problem is that real ART died at the beginning of XIX century with the fool idea of 'Art pou l'Art' (that implies as a logical consquence art is useless). Science resisted until now so it behaves as a 'last fortress' of artisan way of doing but now is rapidly come to death for the same disease that killed art (self-reference). We are struggling to keep science alive but now she is in intensive care dept, as  matter of fact its basic traditional tools (e.g. use of statistical reasoning) was never in such bad shape:

http://www.nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503

Dear Markovic,

the emotion is in the observer, real artists were driven by the need of saying something where the emotional part is present but is minoritary with respect to the convey of information. It is only from XIX century that emotion was taken as the 'primum movens' of the artist, this is why art came to an end...

Moreover any scientist is driven by emotion for his results, listen to what the great mathematician and physicist Henri Poincarè had to say about:“The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it, and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful it would not be worth knowing, and life would not be worth living. I am not speaking, of course, of the beauty which strikes the senses, of the beauty of qualities and appearances. I am far from despising this, but it has nothing to do with science. What I mean is that more intimate beauty which comes from the harmonious order of its parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp.”

On the other hand St. Thomas defined art as 'Recta Ractio Factibilium', i.e. 'the right way to do things that can be done'...in Italian we still define 'a regola d'arte'  that means litreally 'Following the rules of Art' for defining something that is well done, being plates of pasta, a building, a  sexual intercourse, a scientific work..... 

Without art, science is difficult to visualize.

So if you try to sum up the things and the opinions that have been expressed so far on the subject matter, one would find it very difficult to separate art and science as two distinct entities. In reality it is one and the same and if at all one is going to visualise them separately then both are equally important as far as the benefits to humankind are concerned.

Every art has science behind it, irrespective of whether the artist knows this or not.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, see the difference between "Science and Art" as "Claude Bernard" once said:

                                           "Art is I; science is we." 

Dear Dr. Afak Ahmad,

What you have said is not at all wrong but when it comes to creativity, individual talent capacity and the sequences of learned knowledge which you have attributed to Art is also equally valid in the realm of Science as exemplified by the greatest scientist of 20th century. I am obviously referring to Dr. Albert Einstein.

Warm regards,

Art and Science are in reality two sides of the same coin.

Nothing is superior or inferior.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../at-the-intersection-of-arts-and-science_b_67...Mar 8, 2015 - How the Intersection of Art and Science Made History ... of artists who lived at the intersection of arts and sciences, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, ...

http://goo.gl/oZ16qP

So again we end up to have same conclusion. i. e. Art and Science are the two sides of the same coin with equal weightage to both of them.

Regards,

ADP

http://goo.gl/oZ16qP

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Science and art, or by the same token, poetry and prose differ from one another like a journey and an excursion. The purpose of the journey is its goal, the purpose of an excursion is the process."

                                                      -----    Franz Grillparzer 

First of all, all of us know, that culture is the embodiment of the whole order of life of a community of people in A Certain area that prioritizes ethical and moral items, namely in the form of attitudes and actions that are full of thoughtful and wise of the empowerment of conscience in the form of belief in the norms that translates to the ability of the mind and sense.

The definition in the last era is undergoing changes due to the shift in the pattern of realization due to the human tendency in contemporary times prefer the speed and convenience based on the reality and logical thinking as a result of the development of information and technology.

The changes affect all aspects of life because of cultural concerns to the whole order of life in a certain area.

Accordingly, the real culture is the fruit of art and science. This is due to that the cultivation of conscience produce works of art, and the cultivation of the mind to produce creative works of science.

Definitely, definition of art and science as from the elements of culture is also changing as a result as mentioned above of the definition of culture which in the last era that is undergoing changes due to the shift in the pattern of realization due to the human tendency in contemporary times prefer the speed and convenience based on the reality and logical thinking as a result of the development of information and technology.

Moreover, because the changes affect all aspects of life because of cultural concerns to the whole order of life in a certain area, therefore the change causes a change to the work of art itself. Similarly happened to science.

Consequently, the art and science can not be ignored its existence in human life. Hence also, the changes as mentioned above becomes a creative challenge for us to create works of art and the work of science that have added value due to the advantage of competitiveness.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art."

                                                                      ----   Will Durant

ART

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"We foresee no limit to scientific advancement in the future, and in scientific truth there is nothing dead; science is always a living and growing body of knowledge; but art on the contrary has many times run its course to an end, and exhausted its vital power."

                                            -----  George Edward Woodberry