Science as a form of Art

Reading an introduction to important philosophers of science today, I was once again confronted with the fact that very few people agree with me when I say that science is a form of art. Many philosophers have made a sharp distinction between science and art, and given them completely different aims. But it appears to me that the historian of science Anthony Alioto describes the scientific enterprise very beautifully in the preface of the second edition of 'A History of Western Science'.

[Science] now seems to me more like a marvelously complicated, exciting, but nevertheless changing game. It is more like a game we play upon the plateau of nature. Nature joins in our fun at times, at other times is a mere spectator, and at still other times maintains a lofty aloofness, even a bit of maliciousness. Science is more like play - play as a celebration of life, as ritual and production, as a serious contest or a laughing dance, as faith and wonder, yet also as disappointment, frustration, cheating and losing. Most important, science is a game in which, historically at least, the very rules and shape of the contest can be changed and have been changed - many times. [...] Ultimately, it now appears to me that science is a specific kind of festival-game in Western culture.

We might disagree with some of the points Alioto makes here without disagreeing with what I see as his main idea - that what makes science worth the while has nothing to do with predictions, technological applications or objective truth, but with the fact that it is a challenging, exciting and above all beautiful game. Not a game about winning and losing, but a game about the creation of beauty according to certain rules which are neither sharply defined nor unchanging.

Where then, I ask you, is the sharp boundary between Science and Art?

Back