What separates science from art?
- Dashboard
- What separates science from art?
Most Recent Score Report
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Previous Score Reports
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
What separates science from art?
Array
(
[passage] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 559887
[post_author] => 12815
[post_date] => 2025-01-07 01:50:24
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-01-07 06:50:24
[post_content] => Practice Passage (Question 1-6)
*This passage is the property of Khan Academy and has been reformatted into an AAMC-style interface in their entirety by MedLife Mastery. MedLife Mastery does not endorse and is not an affiliate of Khan Academy.
I believe the best understanding of the difference between science and art in the nineteenth century is to be found in a man who was not an artist but a rationalist. Scientist and writer Thomas Henry Huxley argued that the intellectual content of art is altogether different from the intellectual content of science. In art it is truth to nature. But this truth is relative for it depends entirely upon the intellectual culture of the person to whom art is addressed. No man ever understands Shakespeare until he is old, though the youngest may admire him, the reason being that he satisfies the artistic instinct of the youngest and harmonizes with the ripest and richest experiences of the oldest. In science, intellectual content is truth to fact and the deductions and generalizations which can be made from facts.
The pleasures, however, that one receives from either art or science, Huxley said, have a common source. These pleasures arise from the satisfaction one receives in tracing the central theme of whatever he is interested in at the moment in all its endless variations as it appears and reappears to demonstrate the truth of unity in variety. Whether it be a problem in mathematics, an experiment in morphology, a chess game, a primitive drawing, a sophisticated painting, a simple ballad, a complex poem, a homely refrain, or a fugue by Bach, the process of comprehending the symbols used to express the idea is both intellectual and esthetic. The process is intellectual because it is the intellect which comprehends the laws governing any particular science or art; and it is esthetic because it is the feelings which determine the amount of emotional pleasure one can derive from them. But the ends of the two are different. Science has as its end the attainment of truth. Art has for its end the attainment of pleasure. “The subjects of all knowledge are divisible into the two groups,” said Huxley, “matters of science and matters of art; for all things with which the reasoning faculty alone is occupied, come under the province of science. And in the broadest sense, and not in the narrow and technical sense in which we are now accustomed to use the word art, all things feelable, all things which stir our emotions, come under the term of art.”
I believe science is slowly destroying art. It can be said that science has created a hard, materialistic philosophy of life. If it destroyed art only, that would not be so bad; but science also destroys the highest aspirations of the human soul. Love is reduced to a biologic law; family relationships are explained by psychology; ideals are resolved into the yearnings of frustration; and God is metamorphosed into a tribal deity. Once the veil of mystery that enshrouds these great primary instincts of the human soul is ruthlessly snatched away, life loses the qualities which have made it beautiful and significant in the past. Despair takes the place of hope; resignation takes the place of resolution; sex takes the place of love; atheism takes the place of religion. Wise and intelligent men become cynics and common men become hedonists. Duty and morality are forgotten in the mad struggle to forget a life thus deprived of the ideals which before had made it endurable. To eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge can be as disastrous today as it was ages ago in the Garden of Eden.
[post_title] => What separates science from art?
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => what-separates-science-from-art
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-01-07 01:50:24
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-01-07 06:50:24
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://medlifemastery.com/?post_type=passage&p=559887
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => passage
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[questions] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 578908434
[question] => Which of the following hypothetical scenarios best represents the type of research results that the passage author believes is typical of science?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 3
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Beyond the Text” question, which means that it wants you to either apply or extrapolate the ideas in the passage to new situations or to assess how new information would impact the ideas presented in the passage. It is important to understand the assumptions underlying the article, and how new information may or may not shift the central thesis.
In paragraph 3, the author argues that science is “slowly destroying art” and causes life to lose “the qualities which have made it beautiful and significant.” Allowing elderly patients receive emotional support (option 1), would presumably make life more bearable, not less. Option 2 illustrates how science can be used to create beauty, rather than destroying it. The author does not mention anything about violence, destruction, or social cost as negative consequences of science (option 4). Rather, the author is arguing that once science removes mystery from various aspects of the human experience, “life loses the qualities which have made it beautiful and significant in the past.” The author then gives examples of how science does this, including the idea that “Love is reduced to a biologic law.” The reduction of a human emotion, happiness, to a neural synaptic pathway (option 3), is similar to this message.
Option 3 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. Artificial intelligence gives widowed, elderly patients companionship and care
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. Electron microscopes yield captivating and beautiful images of cell bodies
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Neuroscientists discover synaptic pathways that are involved with happiness
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. An engineer designs a lethal weapon that will drastically increase casualties in conflict
)
)
)
[1] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3873426850
[question] => Which of the following CANNOT be inferred from the passage? The author believes that:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 2
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
In paragraph 3, the author argues that science is “slowly destroying art” as well as the “highest aspirations of the human soul.” The author goes on to explain that love, relationships, ideals, and belief in a higher power are all examples of human experiences that are made less meaningful through the mechanical lens of science. The author also says that duty and morality are forgotten as part of science, and makes a moral judgment about whether science makes people less religious (option 1). The author argues that over-explication makes life less bearable, so that people forget duty and morality, and argues that people become less moral because science rejects religion. In other words, the author seems to argue that science, in contrast to art, removes the mystery from life that gives people a higher sense of moral duty through over-explication (option 4). The notion that science and art have nothing in common (option 2) is actually contradicted by the passage which clearly states that they are both intellectual and are both sources of pleasure (option 3).
Option 2 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. science is a large source of immorality in society because it is incompatible with religion.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. science and art have nothing in common.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. both science and art are great sources of pleasure for members of society.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. art is less destructive than science since it does not over-explain certain human experiences.
)
)
)
[2] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 83407773
[question] => According to Huxley, the pleasure derived from science compares with the pleasure derived from art in what way?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 4
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
Huxley believed that while science has the ultimate goal of attaining truth, art has the ultimate goal of serving pleasure. This suggests a difference in how pleasure relates to goals, but not necessarily a difference in pleasure itself. Option 1 is incorrect because paragraph 2 states that science and art both invoke pleasure. The passage also explicitly states in paragraph 2 that the pleasures “that one receives from either art or science, Huxley said, have a common source” (option 2). Finally, both art and science, Huxley believed, offer both intellectual pleasure and esthetic pleasure (option 3).
Option 4 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. True pleasure is derived only from art and not from science.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. There are distinct types of pleasure that one derives from either science or art.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Science offers intellectual pleasure while art offers esthetic pleasure.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. The type of pleasure offered by both science and art are similar if not the same.
)
)
)
[3] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 872728905
[question] => Which of the following hypothetical scenarios best represents the type of research results that the passage author believes is typical of science?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 3
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Beyond the Text” question, which means that it wants you to either apply or extrapolate the ideas in the passage to new situations or to assess how new information would impact the ideas presented in the passage. It is important to understand the assumptions underlying the article, and how new information may or may not shift the central thesis.
In paragraph 3, the author argues that science is “slowly destroying art” and causes life to lose “the qualities which have made it beautiful and significant.” Allowing elderly patients receive emotional support (option 1), would presumably make life more bearable, not less. Option 2 illustrates how science can be used to create beauty, rather than destroying it. The author does not mention anything about violence, destruction, or social cost as negative consequences of science (option 4). Rather, the author is arguing that once science removes mystery from various aspects of the human experience, “life loses the qualities which have made it beautiful and significant in the past.” The author then gives examples of how science does this, including the idea that “Love is reduced to a biologic law.” The reduction of a human emotion, happiness, to a neural synaptic pathway (option 3), is similar to this message.
Option 3 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. Artificial intelligence gives widowed, elderly patients companionship and care
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. Electron microscopes yield captivating and beautiful images of cell bodies
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Neuroscientists discover synaptic pathways that are involved with happiness
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. An engineer designs a lethal weapon that will drastically increase casualties in conflict
)
)
)
[4] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3143847772
[question] => Which one of the following is an idea attributed to Huxley that arguably contradicts another idea also attributed to Huxley?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Within the Text” question. These items generally ask you to think about the author’s reasoning, such as what claim an author is trying to support with a piece of evidence, what assumption underlies a specific statement, or whether an argument is flawed.
The author quotes Huxley as having said that science is concerned with reasoning, while art is concerned with “all things which stir our emotions” (option 1). However, earlier in the paragraph, the author claims that Huxley believed science and art have a common source of pleasure that is both intellectual and esthetic. The author writes that both science and art cause esthetic pleasure “because it is the feelings which determine the amount of emotional pleasure one can derive from them.” Thus, Huxley did believe that science can give one emotional, esthetic pleasure, which seems to contradict the claim that anything that stirs the emotions is art. The idea that science is “slowly destroying art” (option 3) is presented as the author’s own opinion in paragraph 3, not as Huxley’s idea. The suggestion that science has a goal to attain truth (option 4) through fact (option 2) does not contradict other ideas attributed to Huxley.
Option 1 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. All things which stir our emotions, come under the term of art.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. In science, intellectual content is truth to fact.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Science is slowly destroying art.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. Science has as its end the attainment of truth.
)
)
)
[5] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3143847772
[question] => Which of the following CANNOT be inferred from the passage? The author believes that:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 2
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
In paragraph 3, the author argues that science is “slowly destroying art” as well as the “highest aspirations of the human soul.” The author goes on to explain that love, relationships, ideals, and belief in a higher power are all examples of human experiences that are made less meaningful through the mechanical lens of science. The author also says that duty and morality are forgotten as part of science, and makes a moral judgment about whether science makes people less religious (option 1). The author argues that over-explication makes life less bearable, so that people forget duty and morality, and argues that people become less moral because science rejects religion. In other words, the author seems to argue that science, in contrast to art, removes the mystery from life that gives people a higher sense of moral duty through over-explication (option 4). The notion that science and art have nothing in common (option 2) is actually contradicted by the passage which clearly states that they are both intellectual and are both sources of pleasure (option 3).
Option 2 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. science is a large source of immorality in society because it is incompatible with religion.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. science and art have nothing in common.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. both science and art are great sources of pleasure for members of society.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. art is less destructive than science since it does not over-explain certain human experiences.
)
)
)
)
[total_question] => 6
[correct_answers] => Array
(
[559887|1] => C
[559887|2] => B
[559887|3] => D
[559887|4] => C
[559887|5] => A
[559887|6] => B
)
[hide_display_feedback_settings] =>
[hide_solutions] =>
)