Is the distinction of art & science hurting the education system?

I apologize if the title of the post seems controversial, but ever since @sweetpea put the idea of writing a post for #steemiteducation this was the first thing that came to mind (because I really need some answer to this question). And I hope if you manage to survive to the end of the post that you'll want to find some answers yourself as well.

I have written a short post about the apparent need for us to separate art & science in my first days on steemit:
https://steemit.com/art/@plushzilla/why-do-we-see-art-and-science-as-two-separate-disciplines

Unfortunately having a grand total of 0 followers and posting this under the tags of #art, #science and #philosophy didn't attract much attention, but I am nothing if not a persistence person.

As someone who has dabbled in the science (science/IT major) and art (not professionally), I find it impossible to say whether there is a difference or not because I can't find any evidence or information for this, as I tried in my second post about this topic (referencing the definitions provided in the dictionary):
https://steemit.com/art/@plushzilla/still-looking-for-answers-the-need-to-separate-art-and-science

And still no answer...

But I feel compelled to raise this question again, but this time in a different forum because I have a theory that if we can remove the distinction between art and science then there is a chance for the education system to return to a more holistic view about the importance and value of education. I found this to be the experience when I was teaching a course in a relatively new field (UX Design), and the expectation that the course should provide all the skills required to tick boxes at a job interview really puts pressure on the educators and students to meet the market demand. This creates an environment not conduce to teaching or learning, despite the best intentions of teachers and students.

So here I present this case to you not as a parent or educator, but simply as someone who has asked the question and received no answers from artists, scientist, educators, parents and even philosophers that I have approached outside of steemit. I hope that I can find some answers here with your help.

Now let me explain why I think removing the distinction between art and science will make some difference.

If there's something we are guilty of doing as a society in general, it is to simply follow and crowd and participate in group think without really understanding or believing in what we are doing (and we are not immune from it on steemit, judging by recent commentaries and comments to various posts). And if the current generation of graduates coming out of the education system or the way that modern work is being structured provides any indication, it is that we are quickly being sorted into different boxes, silos and stereotypes ready to keep the machines moving along until the robots take over.

One of the topical issues at the moment regarding our society is the redefinition of gender, where we moved on from the traditional view of Men from Mars and Women from Venus to LGBT (then LGBTQI) and who knows if it will change again? Is it not better to look at gender as something that doesn't need to be defined specifically and just respect everyone's right be express their sexuality and sexual preferences without defining whether it fits with your perception or mine? I don't know what happened to the controversial experiments of parents raising their children without specifically indoctrinating ideas about what a 'boy' or 'girl' should or should not like (to play with, to dress like, etc.), but I know friends that feel like if they don't fit into one of the boxes that you can tick on a form then you don't belong anywhere, and I don't think that is a sign of a tolerant or inclusive society.

Okay, maybe we should look at something less controversial instead. Have you wondered what makes a book fiction or non-fiction?
https://steemit.com/books/@plushzilla/what-makes-a-book-fiction-non-fiction

Or have you considered what a 'good' or 'bad' movie is?
https://steemit.com/book/@plushzilla/what-a-good-or-bad-movie-book-song-really-means

My point is that when we create arbitrary (or even well defined) ways to think about something, we put a limitation on how people should think or behave. Of course, there are societal norms that we should adhere to in terms of being nice to your neighbours, don't break any laws, pay your taxes (@larkenrose has an interesting view about this) but other than that what benefits do we achieve by telling our children how they should think? Take the story of the inspirational magician Mahdi Gilbert, who was born without no hands but as a child he had the dream of becoming a magician one day (https://mahdithemagician.com/). If he had given up on the fact that there were no magic tricks designed for people without the use of their hands and did not challenge what is or isn't possible, then we wouldn't have the wonderful story about how he has inspired many more people with perceived disabilities to also follow their dreams. The interesting thing is that he never really saw this as a disability - he recognized an opportunity to pioneer something that was unique to him and that the pursuit of this dream would allow him to reach his potential.

I struggled for a long time coming to terms during my stint in the education system, not because I didn't see the purpose of getting an education, but what the education system wanted me to think about society. That doctors were good people who knew what they were doing, that lawyers upheld the law and justice no matter the situation, the artists and craftsmen struggled on the street or sell out when they become famous, etc., etc. As I left the education system (but continued my journey of learning), I wondered why the purpose of the education system isn't to help people find a way to reach their potential but instead a series of tests and exams telling you what you can and can't do in life. In my professional career as a consultant I came to see that the real world is built around conventions and limitations not because it is the best thing for everyone, but because it is the best thing for the people that get to have that say. So I do believe it is true that you can tell how civilized a society is by the people that are the most disadvantaged and how they live, and whether we provide the opportunity for everyone to reach their potential (if they choose to).

Sorry for taking you on such a long way to get to my original point. But here's the question: what make something that we do the arts or the sciences? Consider some of these points:

• Does being a scientist mean that you can't be creative? Then where do the technological innovations come from?
• Does being a scientist mean that you have to be good at maths and calculations?
• Does being an artist mean that you will be poor? Being an artist and being an entrepreneur/business person are different things.
• Does being an artist mean that you have to be good at drawing or play an instrument?

I think these are the perceptions that parents and students have that limits the ability for our education system to help people reach their potential. I think that when we have defined our interest and passion then it is important to spend some time specializing in something, which we can give various names to like physics, chemistry, opera or whatever you want to pursue, but why call it art or science?

The way we indoctrinate ideas about what art and science is at a very young age (the same way we define what gender is, what is fitness is, what healthy is, what beauty is) then we reduce any chance for our children to come to their own understanding about what it means to them. Inevitably some of them will go through the process of breaking down those barriers/perceptions because they feel confined by them (the same way the gender issue is still being played out in many developed and first world economies), but I would argue that it is largely inhibitory and creates niches where the benefit of collaboration and innovation becomes lost in trying to maintain its identity.

Do you agree in principle of removing the distinction between art & science in early childhood education as a parent or educator? Do you think that we end up training too many scientists that are not allowed to think outside the box and too many artists that suffer for their art unnecessarily? I have seen many of them use steemit to express their frustration, especially around the value of their work not being recognized because it doesn't fit in with how things work in their day job, career and their lifestyle. I realize that education systems don't change (and can't change) overnight, but I also don't see the amount of funding (which seems to be less than what it should) going into changes that will have long term impact unless we challenge the way we think about education and what it really means.

And while I recognize that this might not be the solution, I do hope that this is a valid question that will lead to a better solution for parents and educators.