Discover more from Zhebrak et al.
Exposure to the scientific approach inhibits the ability to create and make mistakes. Undoubtedly, the creative process is necessary to advance in the field, but there is still an irreducible requirement for rigor and completeness. Even if you publish ideas without compiling them into a coherent all-encompassing theory of everything, in the end, they have to be thoroughly valid and somewhat novel. At the same time, the creative work, with its imperfections and concessions, also holds immense value. Art captures the moment, the transient mood, the fleeting glance of the author. It does not have to be perfect, complete, or lasting. You may argue that this is precisely the difference between science and art, and will probably be right. However, I think both can benefit from acquiring the qualities of their counterpart.