vjfhgnf

While the article suggest that the arts and science are similar, the similarities are more in the definition of the two rather than the actuality of what the two produce. Whilst both art and science are "windows on the world" and show us what we have been a part of and what we can likely see in the near future, science doesn't emit the feelings and emotions that a painting or song can. Art in itself is emotion driven, and while it draws from our experiences it does not hold the facts and the cold hard truths that Science offers.
"Science is always self-correcting. Its truths evolve and change." We evolve, there is no way around it, we change there is no way around it. However art is immortalized at the second it is created, it doesn't change. Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" will always be a ballad of alienation, of depression, that will be locked in the 1970s. While we'll continue to bring it with us throughout history, it is just that a piece of history, a piece of our past.
Both Art and Science, portray our history and build towards the same end, however they both accomplish seperate goals. Science fuels our society, and helps to continue and build towards bettering us as a species. Science fuels art. Art doesn't fuel progress it chronicalizes our history, it "can open eyes, ears, feelings and minds" to who we were at that time in space.