Still looking for answers - the need to separate art & science

By the way, I was first inspired to ask this question on a visit to the Art & Science Museum in Singapore (I don't want to promote it too much since it is associated with the casino), but I was a little bit disappointed to find out that it wasn't quite what I thought it was. However, it got me thinking about the way we interpret and understand these very closely connected ideas.

I have posed the question not only to family, friends and other online communities out there, but I don't think I have found a satisfactory answer yet. As a former scientist now working my way out of the IT industry, and an occasional dabbler in the arts, I am intrigued by why there has always been a need to make such a distinction.

Now before you start commenting on my post just hear me out. Have a look at the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary for art:

And then do the same for science:

Basically most people will tell you that art & science are two completely different things, but are related (I am still trying to figure out the logic of this), but if there are any philosophers out there on Steemit that can enlighten me I would love to hear from you.

I posted this question on Philosophy StackExchange and you can read some of the answers here:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/46572/why-do-we-see-art-and-science-as-two-separate-disciplines/46764#46764

Here is a summary of some of the main arguments from that post:

A rather simple answer is that art and science follow different goals and norms: what counts as good art is not what counts as good science.

I don't know that we can necessarily say what is good art or what is good science, judging by human history and our own subjective + biased way of viewing the world. But I assume that in both art and science we are pursuing some form of excellence/truth/monetary gain/fame/contribution to society.

Modern science is defined by reproducibility. It is not enough to work, it must work consistently. Art, almost by definition, is the individual work of genius. Art that is too closely based on a prior model is dismissed as hackneyed, cliched and unoriginal.

It seems like a lot of modern/digital art lends it self to being copy & pasted... Is art only the work of geniuses, what about people like Einstein and Feynman? Didn't their work also inspire many others to take the same path and try to further it?

For your question, science is just pure knowledge, art has a social impact. You are an artist if you make a beautiful shoe, even if you don't know its science. But knowing it helps it lasting longer and being more functional.

Science/technology definitely has social impact, otherwise we wouldn't be here on Steemit/Busy.org and sharing our knowledge based on this thing called block chain.

So I don't really know what to make of the difference between art & science. I think it is like two sides of the same coin, good & evil, fiction & non-fiction books, right & wrong. What do you think?