(From Ted.Com Conversations) The artist and scientist are not the same. The artist seeks to find truth through the creative process unrestricted by rules or onerous conditions other than those that are self imposed. The scientist is fettered by the impossible achievement of truth while following the dictums of discipline. Into this shallow pool of discord the artist flounders with their own impassioned imposition and obstructions of capability while the scientist fights imposed obstructions of process and self imposed restriction on capability.
Where we can still argue from the observers point of view whether something is art the same might be said true of science. In art we look for the contradiction and eradication of conceptual restrictions and call them innovation. In art we advance concepts that are inherently political and sometimes incredibly biased by the events that spawned the creations. In a wildly swinging point, I’d have to say then sometimes we don’t. The artists are allowed this freedom to move from position to position freely.
The scientist is looking for truth that is forced through a fine mesh of process. Innovation can be found in the question, but process is found in the method. Sometimes falsely constrained the scientist must measure and force a result that is quantified. “What is beauty”, may be constrained into a falsifiable premise regardless of the categorical processes that are inherent in the question. Yes, there are chosen methods that bound the question and are accepted, but unanswered is the loss of context inherent in any such answer.
So, yes there is a difference in the freedom of action between the scientist and artist. Whether that is good or bad is an entirely different question.