Johan Lehrer and Mark B. Boslough have opposite views on the needs in the scientific field, but share the common idea that science is necessary. In Lehrer essay, “The Future of Science… is Art”, he is arguing for the integration of art and science, but still mentions the importance of science and it’s need to be recognized in our society. Lehrer states: “First of all, the humanities must sincerely engage with the sciences. Henry James defined the writer as someone on whom nothing is lost; artists must heed his call, and not ignore science’s inspiring descriptions of reality.” Lehrer is vouching for the sciences and its importance in our curriculum. He doesn’t want to get rid of it just slightly enhance it. While Boslough in the essay “We must protect U.S. investment in Scientific Knowledge”, discusses the importance of the scientific method and doesn’t see the need to change it. He argues: …” that deep understanding of mature through scientific research is essential, and that our ‘material, social, and intellectual condition’ directly depends on our scientific knowledge.” Boslough states the importance of science in our overall knowledge. No matter what both authors are trying to argue, they both recognize science as an essential topic in our society. Looking at the dates of each article published and the 13 year age gap, shows how the basis of science hasn’t really changed even though it has been questioned. If thats the case will science ever integrate with the arts ? Or is it all just a topic of discussion up in the air?
Well done, although, please don’t forget to move your own ideas/argument to the forefront of your paragraph. It seems to me that the main idea of this paragraph is that science’s enduring importance suggests that altering science in any way would be an unnecessary move. Put this idea into your claim sentence and watch your argument continue to snap into clearer focus.