Hmmmm, I agree with beauty and art, but science cannot be in the eye of the beholder if it is to be science. To be useful it needs to be true. Therein lies the difference. Art can be futile, science needs to be true, even if ugly. But I don’t think there is a hierarchy. Science helps us survive, art helps us too, just in a different way.
I always felt sorry for the ugly step sisters. No one told them they needn’t be pretty to be beautiful. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
I think people who say that "art is more important than science" don't know enough about either. Otherwise, they would have known that a huge part of art is science, and a huge part of science is art. They are not antagonists, they are conjoined twins. The same about imagination and knowledge: the more you know, the richer your imagination is.
Fantastic essay, Ana, especially for one made of “leftovers”!
One minor quibble with footnote 1: While it’s correct to say that for most of human history it’s more likely that one would have died before her 40th birthday than living longer than that, it’s not because adults died especially young; it’s because so many children died. Until the 19th century, almost half of all babies born died before puberty. The most common age at death was prior to one’s fifth birthday. More information here: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
So, everything you said except that the whole health situation was more dire, because it wasn’t mainly grown-ups dying poetically by coughing bits of lung into a lacy handkerchief; it was toddlers dying of diphtheria.
Maybe like with beauty, both art and science are in the eye of the beholder and can be found in almost anything, depending on how you look.
Loved the ugly stepsister moths who deserve to dance and the “vowel movements”!
Hmmmm, I agree with beauty and art, but science cannot be in the eye of the beholder if it is to be science. To be useful it needs to be true. Therein lies the difference. Art can be futile, science needs to be true, even if ugly. But I don’t think there is a hierarchy. Science helps us survive, art helps us too, just in a different way.
I always felt sorry for the ugly step sisters. No one told them they needn’t be pretty to be beautiful. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
Always a pleasure Buckwheat.
Agreed, I got carried away with being metaphoric!
Meant to say not in a medical science sense, but for instance how cooking at a chef level can be perceived as both an art and a science.
Now I’m totally with you. The perfect equilibrium of flavour and colour is the bit of science in every art form.
I think people who say that "art is more important than science" don't know enough about either. Otherwise, they would have known that a huge part of art is science, and a huge part of science is art. They are not antagonists, they are conjoined twins. The same about imagination and knowledge: the more you know, the richer your imagination is.
Exactly. If one thinks in hierarchies then one missed the whole point.
Fantastic essay, Ana, especially for one made of “leftovers”!
One minor quibble with footnote 1: While it’s correct to say that for most of human history it’s more likely that one would have died before her 40th birthday than living longer than that, it’s not because adults died especially young; it’s because so many children died. Until the 19th century, almost half of all babies born died before puberty. The most common age at death was prior to one’s fifth birthday. More information here: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
So, everything you said except that the whole health situation was more dire, because it wasn’t mainly grown-ups dying poetically by coughing bits of lung into a lacy handkerchief; it was toddlers dying of diphtheria.
Hear hear Doctrix! Long live vaccines!