science vs. art basically
2007-03-26 05:58:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
very good question
art was much more important (in my opinion) in years past, especially in the understanding of our ancient history. Now that humans and language has evolved, science has become an incredibly important facit of our lives. We could not live without science in this day and age, where as I believe we could do so without art. So i'll give the edge to science.
2007-03-26 06:07:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Anything can be detrimental, it depends on how it's being used. Naturally Joseph Mengele proved that science can be a very twisted thing, and also art has had it's fair share of ruin. In essence, they're both very good things. It's only when people misuse them do they become detrimental, and that's not a matter of art or science themselves but the mind behind the actions.
2007-03-26 13:05:02 · answer #2 · answered by Answerer 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think both are positive elements of society. But only science really has the ability to harm. Works of art like books, movies, poems and paintings can make us think a certain way. But an atomic bomb can kill millions in one foul swoop.
2007-03-26 13:43:14 · answer #3 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Plato said that art (music, paintings, drama) was a curse because it did not protray anything real. It was just one person's opinion of a subject. Furthermore, in some cases, in enraged the soul and caused Man to do things that were not moral for him or provide of a path to "Goodness and Happiness"
I have seen little to make me differ from that idea.
2007-03-26 14:45:54 · answer #4 · answered by scotishbob 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Science- definitely. It's got wonderful points, but coming from the standpoint of the environment... We're already overpopulated, and with the way people are living longer and longer from scientifically advanced medicine, we'll damage the earth much faster.
And, thus, ourselves.
2007-03-26 13:25:21 · answer #5 · answered by kathryn m 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If those were the only two to choose from, then science.
however, I believe religion to be most detrimental to humans.
I'll probably get flamed or whatever for saying that.
2007-03-26 13:11:53 · answer #6 · answered by OzoidBlue 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I say art because it is so socially accepted even when the "pieces" being shown depict things that ought not be considered acceptable. Such as crime scene photos of a grizzly murder, does that make homicide OK because as art it is?
2007-03-26 13:05:57 · answer #7 · answered by April J 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's a standoff. But both are generally used in combination for both benefit and harm. Hitler was an artist, by the way.
2007-03-26 13:05:34 · answer #8 · answered by Grist 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't see either being detrimental to humans
2007-03-26 19:47:16 · answer #9 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Science because it can create destructive things.
2007-03-26 13:08:25 · answer #10 · answered by intellectualamarflame 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋