I think PhilGoetz uses art and science here as ‘that what artists, scientists produce’. In that sense, ‘who did it’ is more important in art than in science—a lot of art cannot really be appreciated without knowing the background of the creator and/or his or her motives. But the appreciation for, say, Maxwell’s equations does not depend on what I know of their maker.
I think PhilGoetz uses art and science here as ‘that what artists, scientists produce’. In that sense, ‘who did it’ is more important in art than in science—a lot of art cannot really be appreciated without knowing the background of the creator and/or his or her motives. But the appreciation for, say, Maxwell’s equations does not depend on what I know of their maker.