Jonah Lehrer discusses the correlation between art and science. He mentions specific ways that art and science can aid each other. He feels that without art, science wouldn’t be as progressive because science is holding back the evolution of scientific theories. Which he feels could be solved by applying art towards sciences.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle- Any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle.
“The bridging principle”- The neural event that shows the activity of brain cells and how it creates experience and consciousness.
Reductionism- The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.
Synapse- A junction between two nerve cells, consisting of a minute gap across which impulses pass by diffusion of a neurotransmitter.
Epiphenomenon- A secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular.
Holistic perspective- We are interested in engaging and developing the whole person
Metaphor- A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Niels Bohr related metaphors and science by creating the Bohr model, which is a method of drawing electron configuration to show the amount of electrons in each shell. Alexander Calder related his art perspective differs from a scientists.
I want to challenge one of your sentences, because I think it could be a learning moment.
You write, “He feels that without art, science wouldn’t be as progressive because science is holding back the evolution of scientific theories.”
Your verb choice “wouldn’t” implies a hypothetical situation–as if science integrates the art process now, but if it DIDN’T work with art, it WOULDN’T be as progressive (as it is now). The correct verb tense in this situation would be: He feels that science WILL NOT progress without art…
I also want to question the second half of the sentence. Does Lehrer argue that science holds its own theories back? I’m not sure this is the case. Revisit the text to find exactly why Lehrer argues that science needs art. Remember, the more specific your language, the less room you leave for misinterpretation.
3/3