ART AND SCIENCE

Science is uniquely concerned with physical things. Historically science is born of questions such as: How many are there? Why do apples fall down? How does a falling thing fall? What shape is it? How big is it. How much does it weigh? Why does that object act that way? This requires scientists to restrict their attention to a limited single object and study that one object carefully.

This study may require tremendous physical skill and special techniques. The scientist may have to invent new methods and perfect new skills to conduct his studies. Often numerous studies are done which simply attempt to establish a pattern or direction. But from this careful, and sometimes lengthy, study the scientist attempts to distil some kind of general understanding about the object or event that they have studied.

This general understanding is sometimes called a theory. As it becomes more reliable and useful, it is sometimes is called a Law. These general ideas can then be used to compare other similar objects, evaluate the theory further, and make predictions about events under certain conditions.

But the overall conclusion is that scientists tend to begin with some real-world physical object or phenomenon and conclude with a general idea. They turn the world of reality into the world of imagination and thought.

In contrast, art appears to be concerned with ideas. Much of art, including visual art, music, language arts and performance, appears to be born from such matters as: religious concepts, political movements, cultural characteristics, imaginary events or social ideals. This requires the artist to restrict their attention and focus on a specific idea they wish to explore.

This exploration may require an extended period of time to consider all the ramifications of the idea they wish to explore. This is followed by an extended period of time when the artist may have to invent new methods and exert considerable skill in his chosen medium to produce a model. Often the artist may make several models or attempts to capture the ideas he is contemplating.

In the end the artist creates a physical object which represents his view of the purely ethereal idea he has been contemplating. The important thing is that the end product is a function of the physical world. It may be visual, audible, or palpable; but it is real. This object can then be used to test the accuracy of the artists (and societies) understanding of the idea, explore the ramifications of the idea, explain the idea more fully to others, or even test the truthfulness of the idea.

But the overall conclusion is that artists tend to begin with some non-physical idea and conclude with a real object or physical manifestation that can be detected by the senses. They turn the imaginary world of ideas into reality.

It seems that both groups of people are concerned with understanding our world, arriving at some form of truth and increasing understanding. Even the skills and talents involved are very similar in a general sense. What appears significantly different is that they initiate their mental journeys from separate starting points.

Unfortunately, because of their opposite trajectories, scientists and artists often see themselves as in conflict. Understanding similarities enriches each field significantly. This can be especially powerful in educational endeavors where numerous studies and pilot projects have shown that using one approaches to study the other is especially effective.

For example, having students write about math or science has increased understanding for many students. Writing computer programs that artistically animates scientific phenomenon has proven animate to be an excellent learning tool. The discipline of assigning an artist to explore a specific scientific concept in an art class leads to greater understanding of both art and science.

The world appears to need fewer engineers and poets, and far more people who understand the relationship between ideas and objects. The creation of ideas has an effect on the physical world. The creation of objects has an effect on the creation of ideas.

SYMBIOSIS

Sometimes significant truths are hidden in plain sight.

You might be surprised to know that there are more parasites than free-living animals. Every free-living animal that has been carefully examined has had at least one animal that lives exclusively in, or on, the host. This fact alone, if borne out by continued studies, would make the number of animals living on other animals equal to the number of hosts. But in addition, most animals host much more than one other animal that are shared with, perhaps, numerous other hosts. So if there are a million free-living animal species, there must surely be at least a million other animals that live on them.

Of course, “parasite” may not be the correct word for all of these animals, but that is a semantic discussion, not relating to whether such animals exist in large numbers or not. I may discuss that very issue in a later essay.

Another group of animals that live exclusively in, or on, another living species are the pollinators. The biological connection between the flowering plants and pollinators is so strong that one simply would cease to exist without the other. The majority of flowering plants require an animal to move pollen from one flower or plant to another. But the pollinator requires the flower to supply pollen and/or nectar, absolutely essential to the pollinator’s survival. The two are entwined in an ecological dance that is absolute, and mutually dependent.

Approximately a quarter of a million plants, and three quarters of a million insects, has been described by scientists on the earth today. Together this accounts for fully two thirds of all known organisms on our planet. This is not an accident. These two groups are interdependent for food and reproductive services. There are literally thousands of partnerships between insects and plants. Most are fragile, many are very specific, and often they include third party arrangements. If one partner is lost or diminished, the others will also be lost or diminished. The world does not consist of species. The world consists of ecosystems and partnerships.

The German mycologist (fungus specialist) Heinrich Anton de Bary coined a term as long ago as the late 1800’s for these kinds of relationships: symbiosis. He defined them as “the living together of unlike organisms”. This term has been modified over the years to have slightly different meanings. But I think the original meaning captures a concept that has not been properly appreciated in scientific circles.

Important common phenomena are sometimes underappreciated, while the new, the esoteric or the scandalous captures our attention. In the years since Darwin, evolution has become a dominant scientific principle. “Survival of the fittest” is a common metaphor. But what if the “fittest” doesn’t mean the strongest, or fastest or best adept at hiding, or most prolific as is popularly thought? What if “fit” actually means the ones best at living together? There are literally million of examples that this might be the case. And the pollinators may be the best example we could study.

The study of symbiosis may be one of the true unifying principles of Biology, and one that could more productively be applied to human existence than the results of social Darwinism.