It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences
Debate Rounds (3)
This teaching of philosophy assists in developing life skills, and developing a person spiritually and emotionally, as well as developing free thinking minds, rather than just developing intellectual minds, which, I grant, is still important, but is less important than developing emotion, and free thinking, which are tools for advancement in society.
Finally, the creative arts are more important than the sciences because the creative arts results in a creation, which can convey emotion and thinking to future students.
1. http://whatstheharm.net... If the people listed at this website had been better educated in science and critical thinking, there would be vastly fewer of them there.
2. Since two cavemen stuck a rock on the end of a stick we have been using science to improve our lives. We can go without the next generation of creative artists, but we cannot go without the next generation of engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors etc.
3. We could argue all day about the merits of science vs creative arts, but when it comes down to it, a huge matter is which area has more jobs and jobs that pay more. The answer is science. (http://www.savethestudent.org...).
In regards to your first point, the fallacy of false cause has occurred. We know that educated individuals, like Andrew Wakefield, have before entered the Anti-Vaccine and alternative medicine bandwagon, because of financial conflicts of interest. This means, that even educated people could enter that site, because of another reason, for instance, being convinced by a charismatic individual or group. If you can prove that lack of education is the cause of those people entering that website, then the point stands.
Two cavemen with a rock on the end of a stick could never have made that rock on a stick without the imagination to believe it possible, in the same way that Da Vinci's creativity allowed him to imagine the flying machine, and his many other inventions, even though he did not have the science to create them.
Why does the amount of jobs and their value matter? The creative arts allows for people to learn to think, and not just work.
- 97% of scientists believe in human caused climate change, compared to under 50% of people in general.
- 0.15% of scientists believe in creationism, compared to 40-50% of people in general.
Scientists and engineers are exceedingly imaginative, but aren't necessarily educated in creative arts. You cannot make the assertion that Da Vinci would not have thought of his flying machine without creative arts, but I can definitely assert that without an understanding of science he would not have.
The amount and quality of jobs matters because that mainly why people are educated
Thank you, Con.
Firstly, where are these statistics that you quote sourced? They cannot be listed as valid until they can be confirmed from a reliable source.
Secondly, the education in the creative arts assists in developing imagination, in those that it does not come naturally to, which creates more imaginative people to invent.
Thirdly, your point that people are educated for their jobs is incorrect. People take specialist training for their jobs, but standard level, general education, is aimed toward increasing their quality of life, their emotional intelligence, and honing their life skills, so that they survive alone in an adult world. For this purpose, the creative arts is more important than the sciences, as it gives you a broader, more applicable real world knowledge than the sciences does.
In conclusion, it is clear that the creative arts are a more foundation level learning, and is more important for development of mind than the sciences.
Remember, Vote PRO!
Your second point is a non sequitur. You still cannot assert that art is essential for the invention of new technologies, but I can still assert that science is.
My very first point gave a link to a website listing people who have died or been injured as a result of lacking scientific and critical thinking. How many people have died as a result of not being educated in the creative arts?
Science is not an ivory tower any more. Scientists are not the only people who need to have an understanding of science. Science is funded mainly by governments, and people control the government. People need to understand what science they should pay for, so that research money goes to projects that are legitimate and useful.
In conclusion, I am not saying that creative arts are useless, but people need to be educated in the sciences more than they need to be educated in the creative arts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire case was unsupported assertions. He never actually made a reasonable case in regards to the motion--he just reasserted it. Con showed harms to not having a science background, Pro did not show any equal harms to not having an art background, and failed to show his benefits in any real fashion except through assertion...assertion that Con contradicted by arguing that a background in the sciences DOES teach how to think. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.