We hate the formulation that some things are more art than science, and every one of its variants. We think that they miss the nature of art, of science and of the practice being commented upon.
Half of the idea of this formulation that is that there are some fields that are predetermined and objective. These are fields with rules — even laws — that render every decisions a technical decision with definitive answer. Those are said to be science.
The other half of the idea in this formulation is that there are some fields that are creative and free, without standards or rules. They are full of personal judgment and preference, instead. Those are said to be art.
We think that this is bullshit.
First, that is most definitely not what science is. Science is a process of inquiry, of trying to understand the natural world, of knowledge creation. This process is creative, involves jumps of intuition, doubt, verification, correction, and iteration. The things that this scientific process has taught us are uncertain and always subject to further refinement — and at times even just replacement. Science never gives certain answers, and the authentic scientific process is full of subjective decision-making.
Second, the effort to liken something to art is often a backhand compliment — at best. It denies their existence of expertise, the importance of learning and the very idea the product of the work is appropriate for examination for effectiveness. It denies the possibly of real advancement.
We far prefer recognizing when fields are full of professional judgment. In our view, this means employing the tools for a diverse toolbox towards a particular purpose. Yes, it involves weighing multiple factors without a single clear definitive formula. And yes, it allows for multiple paths to a high quality product. It is not as objective and predetermined as that fantasy of science supposes; instead, it involves the complexity and judgment of actual science.
Art does not have clear standards, or clear goals, and not even a definitive audience. Professional practice has clear goals, clear purpose, recognizable standards of quality — even if they are not definitive — that can be recognized by other professionals. Professional practice should become more effective at achieving its goals over time — both the practice of an individual professional and capabilities of the larger profession. This fundamentally unlike art, which does not have clear goals or purpose, it is more free to evolve in unpredictable directions, which do not necessarily constitute advancement as much as sampling shifting.
In fact, creativity exists in many professions, including science and engineering. Creativity is not at odds with the scientific process or scientific advancement. Creative problem-solving is a part of engineering and a part of mathematics.
We certainly deny that item development is more art than science or as much art as science. These ideas denys that content development professionals develop professional judgment, that the field has standards or that its products can be evaluated by CDPs for effectiveness. Instead, it insists that everything is really more of an opinion than anything else.
Content development work, like most every profession, relies on professional judgment. Professional practice is the application of that judgment in applying the knowledge and tools of the profession, towards the goals that that profession values.