“In the natural sciences progress can be made, but in the arts this is not possible.” To what extent do you agree?
I agree with this statement.
Definition of progress. Then define the natural sciences and the arts as knowledge and how it would lead to ‘progress’. Define about how progress can be made in science. When has progress been made using scientific methods.
Etc (Physics exam, not prepared now, prepared in 6 months because you know more things) Have better understanding of the human condition(beings), culture, language, norms, morality. Justification of knowledge VS what you can do for knowledge. (as progress). Have a firm understanding of what you mean by progress.
In 6000 BC when metals were first discovered, they were merely used for weapons, coins, jewelries. However physics have enabled us to improve our technology and allow for the invention of wires. Wires have many uses. It forms the raw material of many important manufacturers, such as the wire netting industry, engineered springs and for the transporting electricity. How is this beneficial to our living standards?
The definiteion of progress for sciences must be the same for art.
Natural sciences (AOK)
* I agree progress can be made.
* This is claimed by scientist
* 500 years ago, we know nothing about the properties of light. 500 years later we know many things about light and creating fibre cables. To gain more knowledge and understanding of the world, by proving and justifying results. (if you know that metals can conduct electricity, we can make wires. But it is a totally different thing from understanding metals. People claim metal is significant and useful for some people. But progress is also not always a good thing. Metals can be used to make guns. Would it be useful for those being shot at) * is the end result useful? Efficiency is an end to itself. Usefulness is not an end itself. Using a lever. Save time, energy to do other things. More...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document