Specify the differences between science and art as the two ways of knowing

There are two paramount differences between art and science. The first is that art is subjective while science is objective. The second is that art expresses knowledge, most often in the form of subjective representation, while science is the system of acquiring knowledge. Art and science are therefore in fundamental character very dissimilar.

Science is concerned with general truths about the operation of general laws pertaining to the physical (and quantum) world and relies on methods of study and data accumulation based on observation and experimentation. The primary method is called the scientific method, which not only allows for methodical knowledge collection

And then, and another - a form of social consciousness, the forms of existence of human culture. This science - objective, reflects the knowledge Single of the world, and art is subjective and expresses the inner world of the creator. Food science - knowledge, theory, art products - the spiritual values embodied in tangible media. Art objects do not lose their value over time, and scientific theories are rejected as false (ie, modern science is more accurate and complete at srav. with previous).

The resemblance of philosophy and art is that in their works emotionally-personal component is widely represented, they are always individual. However, if the philosopher expresses the problem with the help of concepts, abstractions, referring to the intricacies of the mind, the art worker described the problem through the artistic images, making your way to our mind through the feelings aroused by them. And philosophy, and science, and religion, art and create their own picture of the world, complementing each other.

7.Formulate the concept of ‘scientism’ and ‘anti-scientism’. Arguments each of them.

Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.

In philosophy of science, the term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.

2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

In his essay Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as "an essentially anarchic enterprise" and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over "dealing in knowledge" and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at "making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules."^[46]

[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control