Q.“Politics is the art of the possible”. Similarly, “Science is the art of the soluble”. Explain this beautiful aphorism on the nature and practice of science.

The phrase "the art of the possible" (usually attributed to Bismarck) describes politics as pragmatic — a good politician achieves what circumstances actually allow, rather than pursuing an unattainable ideal. Peter Medawar's parallel, "science is the art of the soluble," makes the same point about scientific practice:

• Scientists choose problems they have a realistic chance of solving with the experimental techniques, mathematical tools, and theoretical framework available at that time. A question may be profound but is left aside until the means to attack it exist (e.g., the structure of DNA was unapproachable before X-ray crystallography matured).
• Science advances incrementally, each solved problem creating new tools/concepts that make the next, harder problem soluble — Newton's calculus made planetary mechanics tractable; the development of spectroscopy made atomic structure tractable; particle accelerators made subatomic structure tractable.
• This does not mean science is timid or avoids deep questions — it means good scientific judgement lies in recognising which version of a big question can currently be attacked rigorously, rather than producing unfalsifiable speculation about the unsolvable parts.
• Contrast: pure philosophy or theology may pose questions science cannot yet (or ever) test experimentally; science restricts itself to what can, in principle, be verified or refuted by observation/experiment — this self-discipline is exactly what keeps it reliable.

Explain the political aphorism first (working within the achievable), then map it onto scientific practice: scientists pick tractable sub-problems of big questions, and progress consists of expanding what counts as 'soluble' over time. Give one supporting example.

• Interpreting 'soluble' as 'easy' rather than 'currently solvable with available means.'
• Forgetting to draw the explicit parallel between the political and scientific aphorisms.
• Treating this as implying science avoids big questions altogether, rather than approaching them via solvable sub-problems.