Battle of art and science - Research Proposal Example

BATTLE OF ART AND SCIENCE Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and an accepted science writer was also a professor at New College, Oxford. In 1982, his prominence was further accepted due to his contribution to the field with the theory described in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic impact of a gene isn’t restricted to just the body of the organism, but was capable of spreading out into the environment, influencing other organisms as well. (Dawkins, xi) Dawkins, an atheist, cynic, methodical rationalist, and an advocator of the Darwin’s theory of natural selection was a loud critic of religion. Dawkins argued that a paranormal creator was non-existent and that belief meets the criteria of a delusion, a permanent misbelieve.  Dawkins has established the foundation theory which was presented in the volume Adaptation and Natural Selection authored by George C. Williamss. He presented the term selfish gene as a means of articulating the gene-centric theory of evolution, which give out the idea that evolution, was best observed as acting on genes and that selection at the organism level almost never dominates selection based on genes. Dawkins was of the opinion that organism tries to evolve to capitalize on its inclusive fitness i.e., the numerous replicas of its genes passed on globally rather than by a certain individual. This led to populations being headed towards an evolutionarily stable approach. Dawkins introduced the term meme as an element of human cultural evolution parallel to that of the gene, proposing that such "selfish" copying may also represent human culture, in a distinct manner. Memetics emerged as the theme of numerous researches after the publication of this concept. By calling genes as being "selfish", Dawkins should not be misinterpreted that his intent was to imply that genes are determined by any motive or will and should be understood that only their impacts suggest as if they are really “selfish”. (Dawkins, 176) The argument was that the genes which are passed on are the ones whose outcomes serve their own inherent interests to carry on being duplicated and not essentially those of the organism which contains it. This outlook makes clear the phenomenon of altruism at the individual level in life, particularly in kin relations when an individual forgoes its own life to shield the lives of kin, and by doing so it acts in the favor of its own genes. (King, 287-9) Several critics have developed understanding to interlink science and art. The science has been regarded as the inspiration for poetry and art, but the poetic fellows believe that art is in human soul and body, it prospers not because of the human wonder in science and technology; rather it drives the human soul and intellect towards achievement of excellence which has translated into scientific wonders. The science and art has been regarded as two distinct cultures, however the notion of diversity and pluralism shall bring convergence among two subjects. It is known that the cultural divisions exists, however this division has translated into "greater demands on science". Art and science are integrated, though these have distinct outlook, but common approach of exploration, experimentation and human satisfaction. The famous novelist C.P. Snow has declared science and arts as two distinct cultures, the advent of scientific gadgets have bridged the two distinct poles, "nonscientists want new and improved technology, but they dont want to learn what makes it possible, only that it does work, is instantaneous, and wont harm them". The art and science existed since the commencement of the evolutionary cycle; however the linkage between these two distinct perspectives or traits was possible after the role of intellect reigned supreme. The human intellect and notion of pluralism has adjudicated that science and art has homogenized. The art is human passion, science is human adventure; if art is human spirit, and the science is thirst. The bond between these two perspectives is extremely strong and severe. The critics and novelists have at instances declared these two independent traits, with difference of ideology and vision. John Keats specified that poetry of nature is the explanation of spiritual divine authority; the science is itself subject which explore the wonders of the nature. It is therefore understandable that science and arts have prime focus with distinct apprehensions and perspective. The Richard Dawkins book, Unweaving the Rainbow, which was significantly subtitled with "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder" which was published in the year 1998, discussed the association amongst science and the arts from the viewpoint of a scientist. Dawkins has interpreted the widespread view that science and art are essentially at odds. Dawkins was of the strong opinion that his view of the surroundings was as full of marvels and a source of musing. This cause of the pleasure was not assumptions of mysterious actions by a deity but rather the comprehensible rules of nature. He often referred to the John Keats long-familiar allegation that Isaac Newton shattered the exquisiteness of the rainbow by explaining it. It is discouraging on the part of poets and scientists to allege each other towards exploration or exploitation of the nature, the essence of art and science is to innovate and experiment. The science experiments with sets of assumption, whereas the art performs with boundary-vision. Dawkins suggested that it was of modest concern whether or not science can provide evidence that the eventual destiny of the cosmos does not have a rationale as every being lives their life in any case at a humane plane, in accordance with aims and insights coming to him naturally. Thus, science should not be an object of fear. As a matter of fact, the search of exquisiteness or romanticism in their vicinity need not end in the supernatural or even be essentially restricted to the unexplained. Science itself, the process of untying the mystic, was striking and poetic. It also professed numerous ways in which the beauty and marvel of the cosmos amplifies when observed scientifically. It introduced the concept of duty to incorporate the scientific view. Stating that the notion of time and space are hugely diversified, the probability of the reader to be living at this point of time, in contrast to a different time frame or location, was miniscule. Even more significantly, the probability that the reader came to life in the first place was all the more slimmer as the accurate structure of atoms had to line up in the cosmos. Dawkins urged upon the realization of the significance of the circumstances and acknowledge the nobility that lies in going into the depths of reality of the universe in the short span of few decades to which his life was allocated. Instead of merely sensing the connection with nature, each individual has the responsibility to study his surroundings in a scientific manner. (King, 224) Dawkins represented rationale apart from beauty and duty in the form of enhancing his abilities in the field of arts. Dawkins strongly believed that the ideas of science when offered to the mass are, "dumbed down" or made simple to make it more graspable for the non-scientists. This leads to an ill service to the common, to those who are competent enough to welcome the splendor of the universe as intensely as a scientist can. The successful teaching of thoroughgoing science improves and does not confuse the artists’ view of the world. The motivation of both poets and scientists lies in the consanguine-al spirit of marveling. Thus the stereotype notion that understanding science was complex, un-cool, and not required for the ordinary should be eradicated. Dawkins advocated that reason for the adoption of a scientific outlook, such outlook shall assist in bringing impartiality in the court of law, by means of DNA fingerprinting or even by effortless statistical analysis and that each individual should adopt the scientific knack of probability estimation in order to make superior choices. (Dawkins, 274) In conclusion, we may state that Dawkins has presented a strong case in favor of science. It truly was a form of art: the art of understanding, the art of using logic, reason and rationale to understand how we human beings fit in larger scheme of things. The human beings are the only species who have the capability to think insightfully, so it should be taken advantage of. When a child was shown a sophisticated toy for the first time, he was obviously fascinated by how wonderfully it works. But when someone teaches how to operate it and he was given the control of it, was it not a wonderful feeling for him? He tries to understand the intricacies of its working. Such was the natural inquisitiveness of a human brain. And we should make our efforts to quench its thirst. Though philosophical and moral issues which go beyond the reach of science are serious contentions which occupy the human mind, the power of knowledge seems to be the only feasible solution. Works Cited: Dawkins, Richard; The Selfish Gene; Auckland University Press, 2003 Kar, P; History of Scientific Theories and its social Applications (Kolkata: Dasgupta & Chatterjee 2008) King, H; Social science and Science (Dunedin: HBT & Brooks Ltd. 2005) Lamb, Davis; Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization; (Wellington: National Book Trust. 2004) Read More