Medicine relies on practical experience. A treat can help while nobody knows what happens. I don't think it's anyhow related to art. It's obfuscated by religion, though. Fundamentalism doesn't like proper reasoning.
It depends on what you understand as arts. There is a subtle difference. Lets get to that later, below.
The main goal of Medicine (Heilkunst), as of Engineering, is not knowledge, but the ability to do something.
This is why they are traditionally no sciences (Wissen-schaft), but arts (Kunst < Können).
Thank You, I never considered that one, I like it. But it will bring us into devils kitchen.
Yes, it is difficult to be able to do something without knowledge, for every art some science may be necessary.
But today the differentiation between art and science is disappearing, everything is being called science.
Science of plumbing, science of house painting with corresponding Ph.D. at renown universities are coming soon.
Now that is simple. People have figured out that it is more desireable to sit in an office and be important than to roll up your sleeves and do some work.
Then also, it was desired that the youth of the labour class should have the same opportunities to go to university as the more wealthy parts of society, and consequentially, the standards and requirements of higher education have continuousely been lowered.
Furthermore, the in surplus admitted studends have mostly not tried to prove themselves in established sciences, but have instead created lots of new sciences, such as minority studies, gender studies, etc.etc. - all of these very much politically correct and SJW-conform, all of these obviousely alimented by the taxpayer, all of these somehow derivatives of sociology (which itself would be considered a derivative of philosophy), and, more importantly, have figured that by declaring their papers, which would naturally be considered philosophic opinions, instead as "scientific facts", they can make the population obey them. Rolant Huntfort termed this phenomenon "
The New Totalitarians" already back in 1971, after studying swedish society. Consequentially, Huntford is now considered a far-right. Funny, isn't it?
Now, concerning the arts. That is an english thing. In german we have a distinction of "Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften", somehow: sciences of creations of the mind and sciences of natural phenomena. In english there are sciences, and then there are "arts and humanities", and I am not fully sure how this would map - while it is "Literaturwissenschaft", english literature is studied at a college of the arts.
Then again, this one...
The main goal of Medicine (Heilkunst), as of Engineering, is not knowledge, but the ability to do something.
This is why they are traditionally no sciences (Wissen-schaft), but arts (Kunst < Können).
... is delightful, because it seems a useful distinction. Only it does also not fully map: philosophy is considered an art, and it is not really an ability to do something (at least not with practical results).
Finally, while medicine is considered an art, at least in its modern form it deals with natural phenomena (hardware). Psychology then again deals with the software.
And there are more misunderstandings: while we consider the body a physical machine that can be maintained by doctors (completely excluding the spiritual being that needs to inhabit it in order to create something that we can call "life"), we get told by psychologists that the mind cannot be considered a machine (like our computers) because it apparently is too complicated. I think it would make more sense the other way round: many aspects of how the body works are still unknown, and how it achieves to
live is a complete mystery. How the mind works, however - well, you sit right in the middle, you just need to observe.
)
www.nature.com
