(Reading time 2 minutes)
The eternal debate always seems to be on what makes a good artist, or what is art? But what makes a good scientist and what is science? For the discipline has most modern answers, yet rarely is the discipline questioned for ethics or offering insight on how to recognise a good scientist. Just what are the parameters and boundaries of science beyond ‘dare to know’? For art it seems is ‘dare to question knowing’.
If both art and science no longer talk liberally in a combined discipline of education, does this fracture not explain the confusion?
So if science is dare to know, does daring to know without boundary make a good scientist? Or is a good scientist one who dares to know, knowing the boundary of their own limitations to know anything?
For when a good scientist knows their own boundary in understanding, there are no absolute theories about how things work. The knowing always expands with questions about what one knows. In this paradigm lies all the confusion about knowing and where it is headed, taking everyone else along with the knowledge it shares.