Art is larger than science, because science is in practice nothing but a craft. Scientists strive to turn science into a rational search for an all-encompassing truth, but such “truth” is not to be found, and even it is (like the fraud called “particle physics” claims by its claimed finding of the so-called “Higgs particle”), any such “truth” has no relevance for anything. It actually is not even scientific, by not being empirically testable, but is instead a religion. So, science can never leave the level of craftsmanship apart from turning itself into a religion, which is not scientific.
Art, however, exceeds the level of craftsmanship. It reaches our minds through our rational thoughts at a deeper level. It is thus larger than science.
This doesn’t mean that science is useless, but the contrary. ONLY science is practically useful in an objective aspect. Art is indeed larger than science, but it is not practically useful other than in a subjective aspect. It means that only science is practically useful in an objective aspect, ie, can describe and manipulate reality structurally. It means that we should use science to manipulate our world, but art to enjoy it. Never can science become an art, just as never can art become a science. And never will the two merge. We thus ought to keep them apart just as we ought to keep church and state (and ethnicity and nation) apart. Ultimately, a pointing finger can’t be merged with the thing it’s pointing at, although the scientific “truth” is located between them.
“The truth” we’re searching is nothing but the pivotal point between assuming that kinds are real and assuming that they aren’t. There’s actually nothing there. It’s just a pivotal point. An interface.
The fundamental obstacle for us to understand reality is that being and the attributes that define being are orthogonal, that is, diametrically opposed. The problem with this fact is that it means that “one” object equals “all” objects, and that “the” truth thus equals “all” truths.
“The” truth is thus per definition either ambiguous or contradictory between “all” truths, which per definition is more than one, since the being and the attributes that define being are orthogonal, and that one can’t be all.
Biological systematics is very interesting in that it searches for an all encompassing classification (as also particle physics do), ie, including ALL classes of ONE class (for biological systematics “living beings” and for particle physics “particles”). The interesting aspect in endeavors like these is whether the search is sensible or not, since we humans do not agree on whether classes are real or not (ie, whether there is a consistent all encompassing classification to be found or not) in the first place. In this aspect, biological systematics is particularly interesting by having developed two classifications differing only in assuming that classes are real or not (ie, that there is a consistent all encompassing classification to be found or not): cladistics and Linnean systematics, respectively. Cladistics thus assumes that there is an all encompassing classification to be found, whereas Linnean classification assumes that there isn’t (Linnean classification handling its assumption by instead using an orthogonal system of classification).
By this, biological systematics can lead us to an answer of the ancient question of whether classes are real or not. In this light (ie, in the light of the two orthogonal classifications “cladistics” and “Linnean classification”), the assumption that classes are real (ie, cladistics) can only be proved by showing that the assumption that they aren’t real (ie, Linnean classification) is inconsistent. One of them has to be inconsistent, since they are contradictory, and the burden of proof thus lies on the cladistic side, ie, proving that the assumption that classes aren’t real is inconsistent, because an orthogonal system (like the Linnean system of classification) is consistent per definition. An orthogonal system can’t meet contradictions per definition. Proving that an orthogonal system is consistent is thus insensible, because it is consistent per definition.
So, the two orthogonal classifications “cladistics” and “Linnean classification” in biological classification can thus lead us to the conclusion that the assumption that classes are real (eg, cladistics and particle physics) is inconsistent, whereas the assumption that they aren’t real (eg, Linnean systematics) is consistent. It means that classifications resting on the assumption that classes are real (like cladistics and particle physics) ends in paradox (ie, double contradiction). Biological systematics calls this paradox “the tree of life” and particle physics calls it “the Higgs particle”, none of which thus can be real.
We can model reality, but we can’t understand what it is. The problem is that “what it is” has two aspects depending on whether we assume that classes aren’t real or that they are real, traditionally called nominalism and realism, respectively.
Nominalism (ie, assuming that classes aren’t real) leads to the conclusion that reality is ambiguous, whereas realism (ie, assuming that classes are real) leads to a pointer. The former can be interpreted simply as that everything has at least two aspects, but how can the latter be interpreted?
Well, digging deeper in this matter, we can understand that a pointer also has two aspects: the pointer itself and what it points at. So, how can this fact be interpreted? A hint to the solution is that these aspects are the same aspects as an error has: it is an error and it points at a possible solution. This comparison leads us to the interpretation of the pointer as an error, or, now climbing up from the hole, that realism leads to error. It means that we can interpret realism (ie, assuming that classes are real) as leading to error. (Examples of this error are, by the way, what cladists call “the tree of life” and what particle physics calls “Higgs particle”, none of which thus can be found.)
In summary, we can’t understand what reality is, because none of the alternative ways to such understanding that are given can lead to understanding, sorry to say. We thus have to conclude that we, unfortunately, simply can’t understand what reality is. (Instead, I would like to cite the Buddhist saying: give up, give up, give up.)
The difference between Linnean taxonomy and cladistics is actually proof for the hypothesis that there isn’t any truth (to be found).
These two possible approaches to classification, ie, assuming that classes aren’t real (ie, Linnean classification) and assuming that classes are real (ie, cladistics), respectively, ends in ambiguity and paradoxical contradiction, respectively.
These two ends of the only possible two approaches to classifications does thus reveal that there is nothing between them, ie, no single truth.
So, sorry to say, there is no possibility to understand reality.
Every “thing” that exists (including the universe) is fundamentally composed of two orthogonal aspects.
The “true nature” of every thing does thus reside in the middle between these two aspects.
The middle between two orthogonal aspects is, however, either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory, depending on whether you look at it or are in the midst of it.
It means that it is impossible to understand what things are composed of, except that they are composed of two orthogonal aspects.