The main argument that drove, “The Future of Science is… Art?” written by Jonah Lehrer is that a cultural bridge is needed between the divided sciences and art. Jonah comments on his claim of science and art needing to be joined by elaborating on how that art will answer the questions scientists do not know the answers to. He comments, ” If we want answers to our most essential questions, then we will need to bridge our cultural divide.” (Lehrer). Science will be able to grow and prosper and gain new insight and wisdom by joining with the arts. On the topic of neurology, Lehrer elaborated that, “By taking these artistic explorations seriously, neuroscientists can better understand
the holistic properties they are trying to parse.” (Lehrer). This evidence elaborates on the fact that by studying  the whole, which is found in the work, then the properties if what information they are trying to figure out will be better understood. The article transferred the argument over to the physics side of their argument where they proposed that they need metaphors in addition to art to benefit physics, and make the metaphors used, better. Lehrer comments, “But there’s another way that artists can bring something to the cosmic conversation: they can help make the scientific metaphors tangible.” ( Lehrer). By making the metaphors tangible, more life-like, then physics can be more easily explained and visual. In the closing paragraph, the main argument was summarized around at the point that art and science complete each other, and the connection between the two can provide science with its answers to it’s deepest questions.

I thought the article, while extremely interesting, it is also extremely dense. While being a science major, I was very confused at a lot of the terminology and language used in the article. It had a solid argument, with even better evidence. However, the high level of scholarly writing left doubt in my mind since there will be people who read this and are left even more confused than me. I do agree with the author about the place of art in the sciences, however, I believe that to strengthen the argument, Lehrer needs to simplify the language and add in more fields that more people understand and can relate to. Not everyone is into physics or neuroscience, by relating the evidence to fields such as nursing, anatomy, or even biology as a whole, the group that is interested and understand, grows exponentially.