The Top Scientist Geniuses Are More Intelligent Than The Top Arts Geniuses
Debate Rounds (3)
Artists (e.g. poets, novelists, artists, singers....) cannot be considered geniuses based on the work that they create , since it is subjective as to whether their work merits any credit at all. For example you may say Shakespeare was a man of monumental genius whereas I could simply say he was dull and deserves no credit for creating work which is easily surpassed by Breaking Bad. Since it is subjective as to whether or not he was actually brilliant, you have no way of disproving me and therefore no credible way of asserting that Shakespeare or any artist is indeed worthy of even being called a genius based on the work they have done. Whereas in the case of Einstein or any of the great scientists the work they do can qualify them as a genius since it is not subjective as to whether or not their work is brilliant. The theory of relativity is a work of genius, you cannot dispute that. It is now one of the pillars of modern physics. A work of genius could be defined as a work of exceptional intellectual achievement, there is no doubt that Einstein's work is "exceptional" but it is subjective as to whether Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet is "exceptional" or not. Therefore it is a matter of pitching unproven genius against proven genius and of course proven genius must always trump unproven genius. Yes, even though it is unproven there may still be a possibility that the unproven genius is actually more intelligent, but based on the most recent evidence and data collected it would be illogical to place unproven genius above the proven genius and therefore we must place the top scientists above the top artists. Tesla, Euclid, Hawking, Einstein, Planck, Schr"dinger, Darwin, Bohr, Newton, Galileo, Archimedes, Fermi, Pascal, Pythagoras, Heisenberg....pick who you want, but all of them are proven geniuses and will trump any artist, in terms of intelligence, from Homer to Shakespeare, who, based on their work, are all unproven geniuses.
Art is useless. Unless you define everything as art, but that is a different debate. Shakespeare's works are a forms of art, Picasso's works are also a forms of art but they have no useful application and so I maintain that scientists are the greater geniuses partly based on the fact that the work they do has use. The artist applies creativity for a useless end whereas the scientist combines creativity and knowledge and so their work has a useful end. Einstein has had a useful impact on humanity, humanity is more advanced because of him, but Shakespeare and every other artist has not had any meaningful impact. Without the genius of biologists we would have nothing to defend ourselves against illness, but we could live without the likes of Shakespeare.
My main argument is that it is a question of unproven genius (artist) against proven genius (scientist)and so it is only logical to place the proven above the unproven and therefore the scientist above the artist.
fRoland.8 forfeited this round.
JudeMatgi forfeited this round.
fRoland.8 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.