Jonah Lehrer’s main argument in his essay was that he believes science and art shouldn’t be seen as two separate ideas, but instead should Throughout the text, he listed many specific examples and related art pieces by artists like Picasso to the Bohr model. He used these examples to create imagery and allow the readers to think that the arts provide visual representations of scientific ideas even if they aren’t intended to. Also, he mentioned how these art pieces can allow scientists to think of new ideas and make new discoveries. Along with this, he also described how metaphors can be used to simplify ideas and could help us better understand topics that are complex, even though they might not be accurate representations. Art allows scientists to think of what they couldn’t see before or break larger ideas and view them in greater detail.
Glossing:
Synapse: The point at which a nerve impulse passes from now neuron to the other, allows communication with the target cell
Epiphenomenon: A secondary phenomenon accompanying another/caused by it
Holistic perspective: Taking different factors into account to get a larger image of culture
J
Your summary of Lehrer’s main argument seems to have been cut off. I’m not sure what you were going to write, but I want to encourage you to look toward the end of his essay where he argues for a concrete vision.
Keep up those amazing annotations!