How art contributes to scientific knowledge

ABSTRACT

We argue that although art has no systematic conventions for conveying knowledge in the way science does, the arts often play an important epistemic role in the production and understanding of scientific knowledge. We argue for what we call weak scientific cognitivism, the view that the production and distribution of scientific knowledge can benefit from engagement with art. We present a range of cases that illustrate a variety of epistemic functions of art relevant to scientific practice, and respond to influential objections from anti-cognitivists that purport to show that art has no epistemic value.

KEYWORDS:

• Aesthetic cognitivism
• epistemic value of art
• scientific cognitivism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Note that we do not mean to imply that artists or artistic movements or forms of expression never create or embody systematic approaches. Dancers and musicians for example engage in systematic routines of practice and compose works that draw from systematized and formalized rules and vocabularies of notes, phrases, movements, forms, techniques, etc. The sense in which these things are systematic is distinct from the sense in which the scientific method is thought to be systematic.

2. To play, go to https://fold.it

3. To clarify, the advent of one-point perspective didn’t necessarily cause a change in the underlying way of seeing at a low level of vision. Rather, it likely changed how people interpret what two-dimensional images represent.

4. Note Carroll (2002) is not an anti-cognitivist; here he is just doing work to strengthen the anti-cognitivist arguments in order to refute them later. Carroll suggests that art, in particular literature, can contribute to deepened understanding. For example, he explains that although Dostoesvsky’s Crime and Punishment does not introduce readers to the novel proposition “murder is wrong,” it can be a source of deepened moral understanding and contribute to self development.

5. Kivy develops the no-argument-argument specifically with respect to literature, but we will consider the argument as it applies to all art. The name “no-argument-argument” is given by Carroll (2002).

6. https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/89204