We will always have more to discover, more to invent, more to understand and that's much closer to art and literature than any science.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't think we have reached a point where art really translates into science. Perhaps for some people, having good visuals can help translate into science.
That which today calls itself science gives us more and more information, and indigestible glut of information, and less and less understanding.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
It is obvious that anything a scientist discovers or invents is based on previous discoveries and inventions. The same applies to the arts.
Much of contemporary science is really the length and shadow of the technology we apply.
As for sticking strictly to presently known science, I will simply point out that we have already experienced at least two major revolutions in science in this century alone.
We foresee no limit to scientific advancement in the future, and in scientific truth there is nothing dead; science is always a living and growing body of knowledge; but art on the contrary has many times run its course to an end, and exhausted its vital power.
I believe that the quantum of our knowledge will increase considerably in the coming years and that scientists will continue to be amongst the brave voices speaking out.
Art and science have so much in common - the process of trial and error, finding something new and innovative, and to experiment and succeed in a breakthrough.
All writers are going to have to learn more about science, because it's such an interesting part of their environment.