good book

1. 1
Science and Art
by Leonid I. Ponomarev
The limitations of science are the most evident in attempts to use scientific methods to
unveil the secrets of art. Science 'knows everything' about the grand piano: the number,
quality and length of its strings; the species of wood used; the composition of the glue,
and the finest details of its design. Nevertheless, it is unable to explain what happens to
this polished box when a virtuoso sits down to play. Perhaps this is even unnecessary. A
person crying over a book does not usually concern himself with the means the author
used to achieve this effect. He can, of course, at a later date read a critical work, twice as
thick, on the book that has impressed him so. This all, however, will resemble an autopsy,
a thing necessary for specialists but extremely unpleasant for most people. Marcus
Aurelius wrote that 'to despise songs and dances, it is sufficient to decompose them into
their component elements'. But Art is wise - through all the ages it has guarded the
intangible truth of sensual perceptions from the persistent intrusions of probing science.
Art has always been valued precisely for its capacity to 'remind us of harmonies
inaccessible to systematic analysis'. Anyone can understand the construction of a nuclear
reactor even if he has never seen one. But it is absolutely impossible to explain to a
person what charm is if he has never been enchanted.
'The might of science lies in its universality. Its laws are free of the arbitrariness of
people, it only represents their collective experience, independent of age, nationality, or
frame of mind.'
The secret of art is its inimitability. The power of its influence depends on the whole
body of the previous experience of a person, on the wealth of his associations, on elusive
changes in his mood, on a chance glance, word, or touch - on all that constitutes the
individuality, the beauty of the transient and the power of the inimitable.

2. The highest achievement for a scientists is to have his findings confirmed, i.e. repeated
by another scientist. On the other hand, sameness kills art, and so a great tragic actor
'dies' on the stage in a new way each night.
Cases are known of symphonies composed by persons without even the rudiments of a
formal musical education. These works may have been unusual but were eligible as such
if at leas a small section of the public liked them. In science such a situation is
inconceivable. It has a criterion of truth and its language does not contain the words 'like'
and 'dislike'.
In Science truths are proved and phenomena are explained. In art they are interpreted.
Logical reasoning is alien to art which substitutes the spontaneous cogency of images for
rigorous proofs.
As a rule, science can explain why this formula is good and why that theory is bad. Art
can only show the fascination of music and the brilliance of a sonnet, never explaining
anything completely.
Science is thorough and unhurried; it keeps on solving its problems for years on end, and
many of them are often passed over from generation to generation. It can afford this
luxury because of an unambiguous method that has been devised for recording and
storing the facts established by science. In art the intuitively precise world of images is
fluid. (Great actors are sometimes called 'heroes of the fleeting moment'.) One keen but
split-second perception, however, may awake in the heart of a person a response that will
stay with him for years and that may even alter the whole course of his life.
Then would I hail the fleeting moment
O stay - you are so fair!
was Faust's passionate longing that could only be fulfilled by the magic of art. It is this
magic that after a lapse of many years can bring back with a frightening clarity the
nuances of remote thoughts and moods that defy any words.

3. 'Notwithstanding the seeming fragility of ambiguity of artistic images, art is more durable
and ancient than science. The Gilgamesh Epic and Homer's poems do stir us even now
because they tell us something that is vital in man and that has remained unchanged for
thousands of years. As for science, it has hardly had time to consolidate the new
possibilities of research.'
It is almost impossible today to read books on physics written in the last century, so
obsolete they have become and so much has the whole style of scientific thought changed
since then. The importance of scientific works is, therefore, determined by their
productivity, not their longevity. They have already done their bit, if they helped to
promote science in their time.
We could go on searching for and finding endless shades of distinction between art and
science. The benefit of such an exercise is doubtful, for the two human endeavours only
differ in their ways of gaining knowledge of the surrounding world and human nature.
Ancient Greeks did not distinguish between the two notions and called them by a single
word Greek(techne), meaning 'skill', 'art', 'craft', and 'refinement' (hence 'technology').
And the first laws of physics established by Pythagoras were laws of harmony.
Poets have long been searching for a 'poesy of thought' and not simply poetry. Scientists,
on their part, speak about 'poetry in science'. Both clans, it seems, are now eager to break
down the age-old barriers between them and to forget their ancient feuds. There is no
sense in arguing about which hand, right or left, is the more important, even thought they
develop and function differently.
Any actor understands that he cannot reach the acme of his art without first mastering the
sciences of diction, mimicry, and gesture. And only then (provided he is talented, of
course!) can he create something unique and wondrous quite unconsciously.
'In exactly the same manner, a scientist, even thought he has mastered the trade of a
physicist, will make no real physicist if he only trusts to formulas and logic. All profound

4. truths of science are paradoxes at birth and cannot be attained by only leaning on logic
and experiment.'
To cut the long story short, real art is impossible without the most rigorous science.
Likewise, deep scientific revelations only in part belong to science, the other part lying in
the domain of art. But there are always boundaries to the scientific analysis of art, and
there is always a limit to grasping science by an impulse of inspiration.
There is an apparent complementarity in the methods utilized by art and science to know
the world. Science relies routinely on the analysis of facts and search for cause-effect
relations; it strives to ' ... find an eternal law in the marvelous transmutations of chance',
endeavours to ' ...find a fixed pole in the endless train of phenomena'. Art, on the other
hand, is largely unconscious synthesis, which finds among the same 'transmutations of
chance' the only and the inimitable ones and among the same 'endless train of
phenomena' infallibly selects only those that enable one to sense the harmony of the
whole.
The world of human perceptions is infinitely diverse, although chaotic and coloured with
personal emotions. Man has a way of putting his impressions in order and comparing
them with those of others. To this end, he has invented science and created arts. Art and
science have thus had common beginnings. They are united by the feeling of wonder they
evoke - how did this formula, this poem, this theory or this music came into existence? (
The ancients said, 'The beginning of knowledge is wonder.' )
'The creative aspect of all arts and sciences is the same. It is determined by one's intuitive
capacity to group facts and impressions of the surrounding world so as to satisfy our
emotional need for harmony, a feeling one experiences when out of chaos of external
impressions one has worked up something simple and consummate, e.g., a statue out of a
block of marble, a poem out of a collection of words, or a formula out of numbers. This
emotional satisfaction is also the first criterion of the truth of the product, which of course
is to be tested later on - by experiments in science and by time in art.'

5. 'Scientist studies nature not because it is useful; rather he studies it because it is a source
of pleasure for him, because nature is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not
be worthy of the effort that goes into knowing it, and life would be not worthy of the
effort it takes to live it.'
These words belong to Henri Poincare. Aesthetic perception of the logical beauty of
science is inherent in some form or other in each true scientist. But perhaps nobody said
about this better than Poincare. 'He loved science not only for the sake of science. For
him it was a source of spiritual joys and aesthetical delights of an artist who has mastered
the art of couching beauty in real forms, ' commented the Russian translator of his
famous books Science and Method, Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, which were instrumental in deciding the scientific
careers of Louis de Broglie, Frederic Joliot-Curie and many, many others.

6. 2
What great questions! In my opinion, science and technology demonstrate such things as
observations and our own believed principles that exist within and govern this world,
such as natural laws and such others. However, artists are still highly valued, for not only
do they demonstrate the creativity possessed by mankind, and what people can do with
innovation, but they also break away from mortality's chain. They surpass the mortal
pales to create something brilliant, and such freedom not known but with creation is
valued, and perchance even a bit envied. Life, as told by the artists, is not that of rigid
truths, but opportunity and possibility in a myriad of wonderful hues.
The fact that the proportion of older people steadily increases in other countries, and its
effect, depends highly upon how modernized that country and society is. For example, in
a third world country with a traditional economic system, the possession of many elders
would benefit with knowledge from the past, and ancestral and filial worship to better
live enlightened. However, some other countries derive their livelihood and businesses
from that of the young population, such as the United States as in electronics, clothing,
etc. Yet in both circumstances, it depends on moreso on the proportion of younger people
in the country. Without another generation, the population is condemned to wither and
gradually fade into history. An older population is valued, but the younger population
really determines the future of that civilization.
In air travel with pollution and consumption of global fuel resources, not necessarily air
travel be restricted, but a another fuel source should be instated. Not necessarily that I
know what that would be, but we are constricting the atmosphere enough with our seven
billion tons of carbon dioxide deposited in the air, but merely from ground activities. Air
pollution is much more direct and harmful, and thus might be considered to be restricted
until we have a grasp and comprehension, as to what sequence should be followed.
Yes, two views with that of studying history. Well, ignoring that of history, we wander
into the future, and may thus pursue our route unhindered by the knowledge of the events
of the past. We can create our own future, and attempt to follow another new road (also,

7. determined on whether or not we would document history after this action). However, it
is often stated that those who condemn and neglect history, are condemned themselves to
repeat it. It would be wise to study past history, for we can live within this life, with
knowledge of history's follies and advantages, and learn from this to implement
thoughtful decisions. This course of action will also benefit the future in long-term
events.