Art or Science? Which is More Precious

Continuing the discussion from Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism:

Cataclysm clarifies.

1 Like

Easy, art. I’m biased though.

1 Like

I would agree that we should save the art, literature, etc. But perhaps for a different reason.

The art objects are somewhat self-explanatory. Someone looking at them can appreciate the art, or perhaps hate the art. Or, to say it differently, they have a lot of stand-alone value. But works of science are not nearly so self-explanatory. The science is to be found in the knowledge of the scientists more than in their printed works. Those scientific works lack the same stand-alone value.

If we could take our best modern science textbooks, and somehow put them on a time machine to transport back to Aristotle, then I suspect that Aristotle would not know what to make of them. He would find some tantalizing hints. But he would probably see a lot of it as obviously wrong.

1 Like

Just saw this part of the scenario…
I recommend zygotes… human, animal, plant seeds etc…
Neither art nor science is more precious than life.

1 Like

Yeah, but those weren’t on the list of options. That would be another scenario, like a lifeboat or ‘space ark’.

The thing with art and cultural artifacts is that most cannot be recovered once lost. They tend to be singletons and the work of creative minds that will not go down the same path again. In contrast, much of science can rediscovered because it’s always there to be ‘found’.


The bible and creationist material would be the best stuff to save.
Art to me is a old dumb idea. Its about a elite group of people doing things that were not intellectually that notable. Just a bias from the old days.
Science, should be, about a greater intellectual accomplishment and so worthy.
unless of coarse rock and roll counts as art then okay.

So the many and varied works of Leonardo da Vinci are not intellectually notable? Good artists bring new ways of thinking. Great artists of the past transcended the “old days,” or what was to them their contemporary society, and that is why they are still relevant today.


I am not sure this is true. I think this impression is caused by a cultural bias because of living in a high tech period of human history.
Art has been a part of human expression ever since human beings have existed.
Science is just a recent activity in human societies and it’s not guaranteed that the scientific method will be rediscovered.
Whereas, art is a part of the human soul and probably any other sentient being and will find expression one way or the other. Great works in history will be missed, however new civilisations will create new art expressing emotions that speaks to their civilisation.

1 Like

No. Painting was overrrated in the old days because they thought only special elite people can do it. Anybody in fact can paint in excellency. Its just a function of memory .
thats why there are no more great artists when, considering the bilions of people, there should be thousands that everyone agrees are better then the old ones.
its just a bias that Leon’s paintings are that good. Anybody making them newly today would not be noticed. The last supper to me looks like a cartoon.The mon lisa is unimpressive and everybody could do that.
its just famous because of a hoistorical bias.
there will be no more great artists because , on a curve, nobody would be that better then the average. The average was better then the old ones.