frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Art is inferior to Science

Debate Information

 Yes, art is important. I listen to music , I watch movies and I admire the drawings that people do. The issue is I have seen a lot of people who think art is more important and better than science. They even go as far as to say that it is artists who are true geniuses and scientists are not actually smart because science blocks any form of creativity. These claims are simply not true.

 Now you may agree with what I said above but you might be looking at the title and already preparing your response which goes something like this: "Art and Science are not comparable. They both carry an important place in our lives.". Well, let me suggest something which many of you will probably disagree. Art pieces are at best, interpretations of the world. They are second-hand views of our universe made third-hand by adding your interpretation in there, somewhere. Art is usually about big emotions like fear, love, sadness and so on. The approach artists take on these subjects are only human centered, the artist asks himself what he feels not what the emotion actually carries or what it is. 

 Science on the other hand is direct. It does not care about our emotions as these are simply fabrications of the universe. A scientific fact is not up to interpretation. Yes, discussions about the scientific fact will occur but the discussions will not be about whether we like the fact or not. They will be about what it could imply and what it could not. And whatever that piece of information shows to us, we can not say anything about it. We will just have to accept it as it is.

 Thanks to science, we now know what our emotions really are and what triggers them. We know that we can not trust our emotions to understand the universe around us. We would just be fooling ourselves if we trusted them. There is a universe around us which does not care whether it looks pretty or not. Thus, the only way for us to correctly look at the universe is science. 

 "Art is just as important because it gives you pleasure, it explores a field where science can not enter." You might say. The field that art explores around is a fake one. If you claim that achieving this pleasure which has fake causes is more important than reality, you might as well be doing drugs for the rest of your life.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    I think science and art are simply different domains. The purpose of science is to develop models we can use to accurately describe the world around us, which lets us make the best out of the resources the world provides, and to use our surroundings to our advantage. The purpose of art, on the other hand, is to satisfy our need of self-expression. While you definitely can describe the world through art, and you can express yourself through science - the art will be severely limited by the constraints of the scientific method, and the science will be extremely imprecise due to the fact that "anything goes" in art.

    Let me describe why these two are, indeed, different domains by using the field I am extremely interested currently in as an illustration - cars. Let us look at this 2018 Ford Mustang.



    From the scientific perspective, this car is a technological marvel. It uses a complex transmission system to transfer the power generated by an internal combustion engine using gasoline as the energy source to the rear wheels, causing them to spin at just the right speed to both maintain the grip on the road, and accelerate the car as fast as possible. Its complex frame design and high-grade composite materials used in its exterior ensure that in a fast-speed crash the car will be damaged as little as possible. Extremely advanced safety features such as Lane Keeping Assist and Adaptive Cruise Control make it drive as safe as possible, regardless of the mistakes the driver can make. It is pretty fast, extremely stable in corners. Truly a technological masterpiece.

    From the artistic perspective, the car has a stunning futuristic visual design. Extremely pleasing curvy shapes, trapezoid grill with a smashing Mustang logo up front, futuristic space-like wheels make it a pleasure to look at. When inside, the interior materials, colors, touch feelings - everything makes it exciting to sit inside and drive. When driving, the car exhibits a very specific and characteristic engine noise, it has a special unique feeling when you are driving it and sharply turning, or accelerating. It is an extremely satisfying piece of art.

    Can you say that the scientific perspective is superior to the artistic perspective? Scientific perspective is about what this car is; artistic perspective is about how this car feels. Both are extremely important to the consumers, and this is why car manufacturers pay extreme attention to both the technological and the artistic design of cars: both can be major selling points to various people. We, humanity, demand both intellectual and artistic satisfaction in order to be happy. Some of us lean more towards either of these: you will find people who do not care about intellectual activities much and instead succumb to emotions and to visual details - and you will also find those who look at a piece of art and shrug, completely oblivious to the meaning, but give them an intellectual idea, and they will be obsessed with figuring it out. There are, of course, also those who are not interested in either - people are different, after all. And there will be those who love both intellectual and artistic activities (Da Vinci would be one of the most famous examples).

    ---

    In conclusion, I would briefly define science as description of what the world is, and art as description of how we feel about this world. In a way, they are inter-dependent: our feelings towards the world are connected to what the world is. The further science advances, the more we learn about the world, the more authentic our feelings are; and in contrary, the more we explore our feelings towards the world, the more ideas on what this world is like we gain. I do not see how we can discard one and embrace the other: science without art is extremely dry and boring, and not many scientists will be willing to work on something that provides no artistic satisfaction to them - and art without science is just a random bunch of abstract ideas that are not connected to anything real. Art and science are different domains, and yet they are not independent domains.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I disagree. I have never claimed that art should be thrown out alltogether. I even admitted to liking art pieces myself. But as I proposed in my first argument, the question comes to which one is more important? Reality or pleasure?

     Yes, we need some kind of emotional pleasure to continue exploring the universe around us. We still are animals after all. But I do not understand how anyone can not see this need of pleasure as a price we have to pay for continuing the act of doing what really is important. We may need art to continue to do science, but do you not realise what art becomes in this scenario? An obstacle. It is only an obstacle we have to get over to continue in our journey. 

     Artists are important not because they are artists but because they create works of art that helps the scientists continue in their journey. 

     You may argue that pleasure might become more important than reality for some people but I do not think you will go that route. 
     

     
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    When you are asking which one is more important, you should clarify: important for what? Important in what regard? We, humans, have needs. Science fulfills some of our needs, and art fulfills some of our other needs. In a way, they are equally important, because without either some of our needs will remain unfulfilled. You said that science deals with reality, while art deals with pleasure - but I do not think this is entirely correct. Both deal with reality, just in different ways. Both can provide pleasure: science provides intellectual pleasure, and art provides emotional pleasure.

    I think you are coming from the fact that science gives us practical information and technology which we can use to improve the quality of our life, while art only gives us abstract pieces that, in themselves, have no worth. I would agree with this sentiment - however, I do not think it makes science any more important to humanity than art. We are not perfectly oiled and programmed machines, we want more from life than just satisfying our material desires. 

    With the example of the Mustang I mentioned above, we certainly could drive that car if it got us where we want it to get us in a reasonable time - however, if it looked from the outside like a rusty trashcan, emanated noise of a swarm of bees and looked from the inside like a 200 years old garage, then we would not value it nearly as much. The artistic side given to it by its creators make it a different entity entirely.

    Finally, with regards to the art being an obstacle to get over to continue in our journey - I think it is a matter of interpretation. I am of the view that it is not just the destination that matters, it is the journey to it. If art has to be a part of this journey, then it is great, it is something that makes our journey more interesting and diverse. Sometimes it is important to take our time and to enjoy the road, rather than trying to get to where we want to be as fast as possible.


    AlexOland
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Okay, I see the mistake I made now thanks to that analogy. Science may be interested in the material world more than art, but that does not make art less important as some people would choose emotional pleasure over intellectual pleasure.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch