"Science provides an understanding of a universal experience. Arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience." Mae Jemison
Here is what Mae Jemison's says about her claim (source):
The sciences, to me, are manifestations of our attempt to express or share our understanding, our experience, to influence the universe external to ourselves. It doesn't rely on us as individuals. It's the universe, as experienced by everyone, and the arts manifest our desire, our attempt to share or influence others through experiences that are peculiar to us as individuals.
science explores and makes available facts about the universe - "universal experience" in a sense that we're all subject to experiencing them, while arts attempt to exposing to everyone ("make universal") those special facts that normally are only available to a particular person.
On the same post, ChristopherE said the following :
[..] I am not sure why we shouldn't think of science as also aspiring to providing understanding for everyone, and I am not sure what to make of art that tries to capture ideal types of things as they're experienced by everyone. (That is, I am not so sure art necessarily starts with the personal.)
My first question is the following: Does Jemison's claim seem plausible to you? Does it make sense?
What differences (and similarities) between arts and science do you think is worth to point out?
I think that for the purpose of this question, when using the word "science" we actually use a word that encompass both science and philosophy. Should we split these two notions appart in order to make sense of Jemison's quotation?