This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Brunel or reading uni: computer science
- How to choose a specialty
- Resitting GCSE Maths? Worth the exam cost? Am I overthinking?
- I decided to take a foundation year but I feel like resitting
- Are my GCSE results good enough to go to top uni’s?
- HELP Southampton or Leeds?( Neuroscience)
- Fine Art at Edinburgh Uni vs Kingston Uni
- Art degree
- I wanna do Med but I just dropped math..
- What A-levels should I take?
- Uni of Liverpool vs. Keele MPH (international student)
- 21 century
- Are these GCSEs ok for vet med
- final choice
- gcse options
- Debating to leave my job after 6 months, what should I do?
- Should I take AQA GCSE Drama?
- Dsa mac upgrade
- Interdisciplinary degree
- Why are the grade requirements for Computer Science at Manchester University so high?
Big Debate: Science versus the Arts
Desperately need fellow artists help on this...we are having a huge debate in school this weekend and iam (proudly) part of the Arts team so....I need your help-Like now! 
--------------
PM me if you think you can give me a hand on this......anyone
--------------
PM me if you think you can give me a hand on this......anyone
Scroll to see replies
Science, without it you wouldn't have the internet on which to post this discussion 
Science is more useful, but arts are more fun. If the world turned to sciences, the human race would quickly evolve into a species viewing the world through inch-thick lenses, fumbling at calculator buttons the size of postage stamps with our second thumbs. TV would become pointless as Game Theory kills every non-reality show; reality shows are killed by the tragic fact that everyone else is just as boring as you. Toddlers would be taught to differentiate, their eyeballs swelling, as their imagination yearns for the outside world. The outside world is analysed, and condensed onto one immense virtual-reality website, the remaining land given over to a Games Workshop spanning several continents, and a game of Magic: The Gathering that never, ever ends. Sex would be for reproduction; reproduction would be for people that make a living compiling statistics about reproduction. Law and politics would quickly become redundant- largely because no-one remains that can speak without a stutter, but primarily because no-one remains that can be bothered leaving the house. With the possible and necessary exception of the Amazon.com delivery boy.
So yes, arts. I'd rather have my trousers round my ankles, than my waistband round my neck.
So yes, arts. I'd rather have my trousers round my ankles, than my waistband round my neck.
Science wins in four rounds.
its a difficult one. being both an arts and science student i could argue either way. I do archaeology and i love it, its my life. The good thing is its a pure mix of the arts and sciences. But it only draws on what it needs from science to broaden an archaeological perspective (so we arent in labs all day!)
Given a striaght chioce though i wud pick the arts as science is no way as interesting. Its the arts that make us human beings, are creativity and are ability to question and express the things aound that separtes us from other creatures on earth.
abstract thought!
Given a striaght chioce though i wud pick the arts as science is no way as interesting. Its the arts that make us human beings, are creativity and are ability to question and express the things aound that separtes us from other creatures on earth.
abstract thought!
Science wins it in my opinion. Without Science there would be no Arts. For example music is only possible because of Physics.
Combine the best bitz of both......Economics bayyybeeee...tis what the world is alll bouut! lolz
In terms of what's the best - I'd say Science
In terms of what is more important to the progression of humanity - I'd say Science
In terms of what you should take as a degree - I'd say a science based subject because let's face it - it's going to be a hell of a lot more useful than "The philosophy of football" or something similar...
Science wins the prize, though it's worth noting that the Arts have their place - but in terms of importance - science is more important.
In terms of what is more important to the progression of humanity - I'd say Science
In terms of what you should take as a degree - I'd say a science based subject because let's face it - it's going to be a hell of a lot more useful than "The philosophy of football" or something similar...
Science wins the prize, though it's worth noting that the Arts have their place - but in terms of importance - science is more important.
IMHO science is a necessity, and the arts are a luxury. I suppose it depends on how you define science, but if you think of it as knowing how nature works and using the knowledge to your advantage, then even the most basic things fall into the category of science. For example even when man lived in caves and hunted, surely knowing how to make spears, use fire etc all show an understanding of nature i.e. friction produces heat which causes wood to burn, knowing that flint can be easily split and formed into a spearhead etc. If that can be classed as science, then without it very little advancement would be possible.
Alternatively think of it like this: If some of the greatest scientists/artist had not existed, how would that affect our day to day lives? If Shakespeare had not existed the world would be short of 37 plays, but how many people's lives would this affect and by how much? If Faraday had not existed we would not know how to generate electricity. There would be no cars, no fridges, no electronic communication. So the absence of a single discovery makes us unable to travel any faster than on horseback, unable to store food and unable to communicate apart from via a messenger or in person. These are all things which would affect a lot of people in a significant way.
I have nothing against the arts, I enjoy listening to music and reading etc but I think it is ridiculous to claim they are more important than the sciences. Are they more fun than the sciences? Maybe, but without science you would probably be sitting shivering in a cave (assuming you hadn't already died from an easily curable disease) - how much fun is that?
Alternatively think of it like this: If some of the greatest scientists/artist had not existed, how would that affect our day to day lives? If Shakespeare had not existed the world would be short of 37 plays, but how many people's lives would this affect and by how much? If Faraday had not existed we would not know how to generate electricity. There would be no cars, no fridges, no electronic communication. So the absence of a single discovery makes us unable to travel any faster than on horseback, unable to store food and unable to communicate apart from via a messenger or in person. These are all things which would affect a lot of people in a significant way.
I have nothing against the arts, I enjoy listening to music and reading etc but I think it is ridiculous to claim they are more important than the sciences. Are they more fun than the sciences? Maybe, but without science you would probably be sitting shivering in a cave (assuming you hadn't already died from an easily curable disease) - how much fun is that?
Art is a celebration of humanity, an exploration into the human psyche. I am a science student, but I've been dabbling in art and music for years. Without it I'd be insane. My point is that science is great, but life and culture would be less rich and fufilling if not for art.
It's true that without science there probably wouldn't be any television, but then again, there wouldn't be any form of entertainment as arts are things that create actors, musicians and camera crew who are all important in making good films, television shows and background music. Without entertainment, this world would be a pretty dull place and I think it is a necessity, even though you might not think so. It's like a holiday, which to some is considered a luxury, and to others it is a necessity because without it, you'd probably be extremely depressed if you worked all the time, and I see this in the same way as the arts.
pianist
It's true that without science there probably wouldn't be any television, but then again, there wouldn't be any form of entertainment as arts are things that create actors, musicians and camera crew who are all important in making good films, television shows and background music. Without entertainment, this world would be a pretty dull place and I think it is a necessity, even though you might not think so. It's like a holiday, which to some is considered a luxury, and to others it is a necessity because without it, you'd probably be extremely depressed if you worked all the time, and I see this in the same way as the arts.
Yeah but what most people are saying is that without Science you wouldn't have your actors, musicians or camera crew so in order to have Arts you must have Science in the first place to produce Arts.
Related discussions
- Brunel or reading uni: computer science
- How to choose a specialty
- Resitting GCSE Maths? Worth the exam cost? Am I overthinking?
- I decided to take a foundation year but I feel like resitting
- Are my GCSE results good enough to go to top uni’s?
- HELP Southampton or Leeds?( Neuroscience)
- Fine Art at Edinburgh Uni vs Kingston Uni
- Art degree
- I wanna do Med but I just dropped math..
- What A-levels should I take?
- Uni of Liverpool vs. Keele MPH (international student)
- 21 century
- Are these GCSEs ok for vet med
- final choice
- gcse options
- Debating to leave my job after 6 months, what should I do?
- Should I take AQA GCSE Drama?
- Dsa mac upgrade
- Interdisciplinary degree
- Why are the grade requirements for Computer Science at Manchester University so high?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
It has been two years since I graduated and I don't know what to do
