Analysis Of Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature Of Science

Science is a field of study to which we hear endless talk of. From news headlines to magazine covers, it has become an incremental part of society. In Lewis Wolpert’s book, The Unnatural Nature of Science, he attempts to shed light on key aspects of science. These include science’s fundamental characteristics, as well as how science differs from other studies such as art, technology, philosophy, and religion. He invokes thought into questions such as how scientists agree or disagree with Kuhn’s ideas about science as well as if the concept of intelligent design is a scientific theory, or merely religious philosophy. What is science? Science is a type of critical thinking undergone by people in order to explain nature in the simplest way …show more content…
Firstly, is technology. Both science and technology have ascertained a somewhat cultural equity, yet they are two very different aspects of our lives. Primarily, are the core uses of each, technology is advanced in order to provide humans with a usable item to overcome obstacles or ease the difficulty in performing said task. On the opposite side is science which is a set of ideals used to answer questions about perceived phenomena. Technology is often tied in with a common sense path of thought, such as the wheel making something easier to push. The individual does not need to understand the science behind this, they simply observe and apply the technology in order to become more efficient. Science however, would look at the forces in the natural world acting upon this wheel, such as friction and explain why the device made movement easier. The reward for advances in each of these fields is also vastly different. Those who seek to advance technology hope for money in compensation for their new product placed on markets. Scientists however, seek advancement merely for the esteem and self gratifying feeling of …show more content…
Wolpert explains that much like science, there is a certain degree of similarity within the creative processes of art and science. Indeed, both require abstract ways of thinking in order to happen upon new discoveries or creations. Scientists are sometimes known to have eureka moments, or instances where a sudden clarity rushes to them, this is also true in art forms such as when artists suddenly gain inspiration. Differences between science and art arise in many areas as well. To elaborate, meaning in art is subjective or metaphorical, it is open to interpretation; whereas in science there is no room for this ambiguous interpretation, explanations must be concise and to the point with no room for argument about the meaning of a statement. The products of art are characterized by their creativity in contrast to science’s simplistic design. Finally, major milestones in science can not be re-discovered, no one can discover Einstein’s theory of relativity again, it has already been done. Yet in art, no one objects to another play of similar setting to that of Shakespeare’s