This paper considers the view that medicine is both "science" and "art." It is argued that on this view certain clinical knowledge -of patients' histories, values, and preferences, and how to integrate them in decision-making -cannot be scientifi c knowledge. However, by drawing on recent work in philosophy of science it is argued that progress in gaining such knowledge has been achieved by the accumulation of what should be understood as "scientifi c" knowledge. I claim there are varying degrees of objectivity pertaining to various aspects of clinical medicine. Hence, what is often understood as constituting the "art" of medicine is amenable to objective methods of inquiry, and so, may be understood as "science". As a result, I conclude that rather than endorse the popular philosophical distinction between the art and science of medicine, in the future a unifi ed, multifaceted epistemology of medicine should be developed to replace it.