Many of the group dialogues I have been involved in with artists and scientists have indeed wound up like a drunken conversation. Often it seems both are using the same terminology but have different definitions. Another issue seems to be a more than average knowledge or awareness of current issues in science on the part of the artist and a lack of general knowledge of contemporary art on the part of the scientist. I think this is because in the potential sciart relationship, art needs science more than science needs art.
I see the most fundamental difference between art and science to be the objective nature of science and the subjective nature of art. Science is concerned with the world of the real and art is concerned largely with simulated realities. Science requires reproducible results and art depends on the inability to reproduce.
I think there is good reason to be concerned about the future of art. If art can potentially expand its audience through some sort of interaction with the juggernaut of science, it is a bet worth taking. But the epistemological differences between the two make a true convergence unlikely in our lifetimes and perhaps never. Still, I think the potential is so high that it is worth investing in. The drunken conversation may first aim to be slightly less drunken over a period of time by clarifying our language- and certainly if more scientists could find a value in art that merits educating themselves further on the issues of contemporary art.