E-mail Print PDF

What does Science have to do with Art?

About as much as science has to do with a sandbox.  Scientists and artists and for that matter many other professionals enjoy playing within their own sandbox.  Even more interestingly they do not let strangers play in their sandboxes.  If you listen to a physicist talking to an economist, he usually cannot hold himself or herself back from pointing out that economics is not really a science, at least not in the same sense that physics is.

Some 40 plus years ago, Karl Popper, Austrian-British philosopher of science established or expanded criteria of what is true hard science.  The new criterion requires that a scientific hypothesis must propose tests that could disprove the hypothesis.  If there is no way to disprove the hypothesis then it cannot be considered scientific or at least hard scientific.  By using this criteria physics, chemistry and other hard sciences cast themselves away from such “soft sciences” as economics, psychology, history and many others.  Not to mention art, theology and other human endeavors.

Such strict separation of what science, in the eyes of a community of physicists, is clearly advantageous in making sure that the science is done by professionals.  However, is there something lost as well?  Very few scientists attempt to engage wider public in a dialog about their work.  Perhaps something is lost because of that on both sides.

Bringing up Falsifiability criterion in the context of art discussion is a metaphorical warning of trying to come out from your own sandbox and engage with others and seek to enrich experience of many.

Dr. Wojciech Chrosny

For more information about Karl Popper see