Let me begin with a quote from C.P.Snows’ 1959 Rede Lectures: “I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups.” The split envisaged here by Snow between Art (by Art I include Humanities and Literature and social sciences) and pure Science is still widening and this is primarily due to the elitist attitude being harboured by both the groups that help perpetuate the split. Snow recounts his personal experience when he says that in many a learned gatherings of persons belonging to the discipline of Art he poses the question as to how many of them can really explain the second law of thermodynamics. And all of them remain invariably silent. Snow , however,maintains that it is as good as asking an Art student about Shakespeare.
Many men of Science believe that Art is a luxury and hardly contributes to human progress and development. 'Was this the face that launched a thousand ships....' is an articulation of aesthetic experience for the poet whereas for a man of science the 'truth' in fact is in the act of seeing. In other words the image getting captured and journeying through Retina and finally the intrusion of brain and so on.
But are Art and science such watertight compartments?
I do not think so. And I am sure many of you will agree to my view.
There are many aspects of Art and Science that are shared and together further knowledge-both self-knowledge and public knowledge. Scientist writers like Fritjof Kapra, Paul Davis , Michio Kaku to name a few, have helped me straddle both the worlds. Kapra has shown us in his 'Tao of Physics' and for that matter Paul Davis in his 'God and the new physics' have clearly demonstrated how at one level particle physics and (Primarily eastern)mystical thoughts converge. In some ways Art and Science can be the two sides of the same coin. One illuminating self-knowledge and the other public knowledge. Both are inquiry into nature , the ways are different though. Art is also a discovery. An artist uses his own medium in his effort of discovery and is not aware beforehand about the nature of his discovery until the work is done. In that sense, it may be mentioned, Art is different from craft for craft knows the final shape beforehand. The medium of Science are more abstract-experiment and Mathematics. But the aim is to discover. Yet Science never knows where it is heading for( On Science by B.K.Ridley). Both Science and Art are built on firm foundations. What was considered beautiful in past is still regarded so and inform creativity.
The history of Art and Science are both fascinating. The growth and power of Science forced Art to focus more on subjective elements. However, both permeate each other in their growth and develpment. Hermatism of ancient Egypt helped Copernicus to conceive the idea of a helio-centric model of our solar system. We are aware how the hypothesis of hyperspace influenced Dali and Piccaso in their artistic creations (Hyperspace by Michio Kaku).
One fundamental difference between Art( Let me repeat by Art I mean Humanities and literature and Social Sciences also) and Science is that the problems in Science always converge whereas the problems in Art always diverge. All super specialists will agree that Losartan Potassium is the most suitable drug for treating Diabetic Hypertension. On the other hand Social Scientists will debate how Diabetic Hypertension will impact social gerontology.
One thing is certain. It is foolish to view the world with the narrow view of Science. All great scientists in the world came out of the confines of their laboratories and let their world view permeate with humanistic philosophy. Einstein is a case in point. His oft-quoted line 'Science without religion is lame,religion without Science is blind' is profoundly thought-provoking.
So the elitist attitude harboured by both the groups will be an impediment in the way of human progress. The need of the hour is to listen to and understand each other. That is ,I am sure going to bridge the gap between the 'Two Cultures'.
