Blog #16

Naysayer Paragraph

Some critics of STEAM education argue that while art may be important, it is not fundamental to the furthering of technology development and scientific discovery. The scientific method is designed to avoid emotional biases and focus on straight observed facts. Lehrer uses the example of Bohr’s electron model being inspired by Picasso and the cubist movement as reasoning for why art should actually be integrated into the scientific process. Lehrer writes “(w)e need to find a place for the artist within the experimental process, to rediscover what Bohr observed when he looked at those cubist paintings”. Perhaps the way that art becomes a part of the experimental process is not actually within the experiment itself, but the designing and development of experimental questions or processes. It may not be the case that science needs art to change how it collects and interprets data, but it does need art to find new approaches and questions to answer about difficult topics to dissect like physics and neuroscience. Lehrer breaks down our current state of society into two cultures, science and art. According to Lehrer, “(i)f we want answers to our most essential questions, then we will need to bridge our cultural divide”. As the list of grand concepts that we have yet to scientifically discover shrinks, the items left on the list remain too difficult for our current systems. It seems as though integrating art could help give science a more creative approach to problem solving.