In our most recent TOK class we discussed the ideas of bias and problems with observation in the realm of natural science. For this reflection, we were given two readings related to the development of knowledge and to bias and observation to look over in order to assist with our response to the prompt “science is objective and descriptive, while the arts are creative and interpretive”.
This claim is one that is quite difficult to analyze because science and art are such large topics, with many different disciplines fitting under each. I believe that in the case of science, scientists attempt to be both objective and descriptive, however, in reality, there are many factors that could influence the way that scientists observe and make conclusions, including observations of past scientist, the views of the greater scientific community, or the religious/cultural views of the scientist. It is extremely difficult in any situation to remain completely objective while being able to make conclusions that will lead to descriptive and insightful analysis. However in comparison to the area of knowledge of art science is definitely more objective, and in-depth or descriptive. Although there are certainly art pieces that could be seen as objective, or things considered art that is objective, the majority of artworks either embody the views or emotions of the artist or in some cases is trying to bring attention to an event or movement. Also, art in many ways is interpretive and not structured, so I would say that I would agree with what the claim says that are is “creative and interpretive”. However science in some aspects could also be creative and interpretive, and art could be objective and descriptive, so I would say that although I agree with both statements, I believe that they don’t only apply to each specific area of knowledge.