Definition Collins English Dictionary defines 'the arts' as "imaginative, creative, and nonscientific branches of knowledge considered collectively,

esp. as studied academically".[4] The singular term art is defined by the Irish Art Encyclopedia as follows: "Art is created when an artist creates a beautiful object, or produces a stimulating experience that is considered by his audience to have artistic merit."[5] So, one could conclude that art is the process that leads to a product (the artwork or piece of art), which is then examined and analyzed by experts or simply enjoyed by those who appreciate it. The same source states:

Art is a global activity which encompasses a host of disciplines, as evidenced by the range of words and phrases which have been invented to describe its various forms. Examples of such phraseology include: Fine Arts, Liberal Arts, Visual Arts, Decorative Arts, Applied Arts, Design, Crafts, Performing Arts, and so on.

The term art commonly refers to the "Visual Arts", as an abbreviation of creative art or fine art. For example, the history of art is described as "the history of the visual arts of painting, sculpture and architecture. It is the history of one of the fine arts, others of which are the performing arts and the literature. It is also one of the humanities. The term sometimes encompasses theory of the visual arts, including aesthetics." In the article for fine art, we read:

Confusion often occurs when people mistakenly refer to the Fine Arts but mean the Performing Arts (Music, Dance, Drama, etc.). However, there is some disagreement here: e.g., at York University (Toronto, Canada) Fine Arts is a faculty that includes Dance, Design, Digital Media, Film, Music, Theater and Visual Arts.[6] Furthermore, creative writing is frequently considered a fine art as well.

To illustrate the previous statements, the College of Fine Arts at Stephen F. Austin State University (Nacogdoches, TX) consists of the Schools of "Art, Music and Theatre",[7] while one of the Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees at the University of British Columbia is attached to the Creative Writing Program.[8]

More work would be required to standardize the use of the terms "art" and "fine art", but for the purpose of this article the definition of "the arts" is not problematic, because it includes all the arts. One artist has even suggested that "[it] would really simplify matters if we could all just

stick with visual, auditory, performance or literary when we speak of The Arts and eliminate Fine altogether".[9] science Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).[2] Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language.[citation needed] By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[4] This narrower sense of "science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science Philosophy of science Main article: Philosophy of science Further information: Intersubjective verifiability and Subjunctive possibility

John Locke

Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.

The belief that all observers share a common reality is known as realism. It can be contrasted with anti-realism, the belief that there is no valid concept of absolute truth such that things that are true for one observer are true for all observers. The most commonly defended form of antirealism is idealism, the belief that the mind or spirit is the most basic essence, and that each mind generates its own reality.[15] In an idealistic world-view, what is true for one mind need not be true for other minds.

There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism, which claims that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[16] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and the hence finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being bayesianism[17] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[18]

Distinguished Men of Science.[19] Use a cursor to see who is who.[20]

Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.[21] A significant twentieth century version of rationalism is critical rationalism, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper. Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by

observation, but that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.[22] Popper proposed falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories, and falsification as the empirical method, to replace verifiability[23] and induction by purely deductive notions.[24] Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, and that this method is not specific to science: The negative method of criticism, trial and error.[25] It covers all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art [26]

Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and calculate", emphasizes the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[27] It claims that scientific theories are black boxes with only their input (initial conditions) and output (predictions) being relevant. Consequences, notions and logical structure of the theories are claimed to be something that should simply be ignored and that scientists shouldn't make a fuss about (see interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[28] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[28] Feyerabend also stated that science does not have evidence for its philosophical precepts, particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space.[29]

Finally, another approach often cited in debates of scientific skepticism against controversial movements like "scientific creationism", is methodological naturalism. Its main point is that a difference between natural and supernatural explanations should be made, and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural explanations.[30] That the restriction is merely methodological (rather than ontological) means that science should not consider supernatural explanations itself, but should not claim them to be wrong either. Instead, supernatural explanations should be left a matter of personal belief outside the scope of science. Methodological naturalism maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating explanations for observable phenomena.[31] The absence of these standards, arguments from

authority, biased observational studies and other common fallacies are frequently cited by supporters of methodological naturalism as criteria for the dubious claims they criticize not to be true science. What is difference between science and arts Science's object is to increase the available data concerning an attribute or behaviour of some entity or category of entity in the universe, or to establish a theory which can correctly predict the behaviour of some entity or category of knowledge in the universe. Art has no object. An artwork is its own object. The object of an artist is simply to create a complete work of art. The purposes of that work of art are as many as the works of art themselves.

But art always demands the creation of something new -the new work of art - which can stand by itself, on its own, as though it was alone in the universe, as though no art had been done before, or would be done again. Its prime purpose is not utilitarian. It is not made to entertain. It is not made to educate. It is not made to guide. It is not made to work. It is not made to demonstrate perfection. In this way it is similar to the nature of a living creature. However, as a consequence of being itself, it might do any or all those things. Works that are made to be useful as a prime purpose are called crafts. Although there are many works of art which are usefully applied -for worship, for dancing, for ornament and other reasons, to be an art its usefulness never overwhelms it. If its utility is removed, its nature as a stand alone work can remain the same.

Although a work of art can be made at one point in time, often it takes many decades-even centuries- to discover whether it is a great one which can stand alone as itself even as time passes and fashions fade, and other cultures come to know it.

In all work which deserves to be done well, there is in it some scientific technique and some arts technique. But there is a distinction between work that has as its purpose and object the creation of new science or new art and work which is utilitarian, that has service or usefulness as its purpose.

As for what art does -it can take you up into ecstacy or look nice over your couch. And Science too, can change human history and lift humanity into a new paradigm of human consciousness, and it grow unknown microorganisms in obscure environments.