Jonah Lehrer’s main argument, or arguments, is one of two things, or possibly both. The main idea is to insert art in to the sciences and sciences into the arts. This leads to the two possible main arguments. The first is that art can be used to model the theoretics of science. This would allow a more visual look at the theories as to come up with better questions or other ways forward on finding coming closer to the larger questions on reality. The second is that art is how science gets to the common man. This is, I believe, just the practical side of science.
I don’t necessarily disagree with these main points, but his whole essay is so boring and infuriating at the same time. Him arriving to some of these conclusions just took so long. It takes him a little over a page to get to his “thesis.” It’s like you already know where he’s going, but you have no idea when he’s going to get there because he takes so long. I also couldn’t help but think about the “god of the gaps” argument, except with art. Sometimes it just sounded like, “well science has created more questions than it has answered so let’s through some art in there.” That is actually how it seemed his ideas were presented. There were also two major problems I’ve found. One is the things that “feel” true. Just because some things experienced in say a novel feel true, does not mean it is actually true. Second is the subjectivity of art. Science is supposed to be objective. If we add the subjectivity of art into science, what is then truly true. I am alright with the use of art for generation of new ideas or the delivery to the public, but having a mix, I think, would be detrimental on what is actual true.
Reductionism: The idea of reducing ideas into more basic explanations
Epiphenomenon: a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside the primary phenomenon
Synapse: Structure that permits a neuron or nerve cell to transfer an electric charge to another neuron or nerve cell
Great. Be careful that your paper focuses its criticism on Lehrer’s ideas rather than his writing. That said, I think you offer some valid criticisms that you should definitely consider using in your formal paper. I’d never heard of the “God of the Gaps” fallacy (by name). I love the connection!