/lit/ - Literature

Yes.

Milton is worth any number of Newtons, Newton is worth any number of Balzacs. It depends on the person.

>>12483900
They do completely different things. Can't really compare

>>12483900
>more intelligent
Maybe
>more profound
No

They’re the pawn of Evil

>>12483900
Without question.

We live in the best society that has ever existed, and that is due mostly to our science.

>>12483914
They all bend reality according to their own will.

>>12483946
ass

Tesla dated Mark Twain, so they can't be that dumb.

ultimately Science is just another metaphysics. So much smaller than nature-- we could never contain it in ourselves. We've managed to make civilization more comfortable, for a time, with our theories. but we only ever approach the truth at a wide asymptote

>>12483948
Everyone does that, anon. You can't escape your head

>>12483900
Science is just following a method. Your can apply it more rigorously or logically than your peers, but it's no different than being a skilled carpenter. Scientists will never be artists and the canonical scientists are just the ones who got lucky enough to find the most interesting results

>>12483900
Yes, eminently so. Liberal arts faggots barely even register.

>>12483900
you're a fucking brainlet for asking this question

>>12483946
Shame that suicide rates are highest in the most developed countries, huh

>>12484238
still is better than starving to death, dying when the local rabid dog/child bites you due to hunger or dying because the local witch doctor senses bad omens from you and refuses to conjure up healing paste.

>>12484249
Yeah, I'd much rather slave away for $25 an hour every day and choke down antidepressants and browse memes on my free time to pacify further my screen-addicted brain

>>12483900
is it not all art?
Scientist, mathmatics,chemistry computers,
all based around the art of creation, moreover, how to take the original creation and make it into what we want it to be of what we know we can make it.
they are all artist in their own way, so why try to compare them? They are beautiful minds, in love with the creation that they were born unto, molding it learning it!
Amazing it all isn't it!!!

>>12484259
As opposed to waking up each day wondering if you will go without food, die of some disease, be exploited to an extreme by a fucking electronics company that wants you to mine cobalt for a pittance, while they rake in billions, perhaps choosing to donate money to foundations to help improve shitty parts of your country without helping the exploited native populace actually become independent.

>>12484209
The scientific method doesn't generate hypotheses out of the nether. It a tool for validating claims. The great scientists didn't just stumble upon their results. They were great thinkers with unique insight as to the nature of reality, which they proved to be objectively true.

>>12483900
Probably not. A chinese education factory can churn out a hundred scientists a day, but it cannot do the same with artists. It's much harder to make worthwhile art than it is to make worthwhile science.

>>12483946
It's fitting that you begin your shitpost with "without question", as you answer has nothing to do with the original question.
Imagine Immanuel Kant and a carpenter somehow gotten stuck on a deserted island together. Kant spends his time writing critique of pure reason, the carpenter building a hut. Their society is better because of the hut, sure. Does that mean the carpenter is deeper and more profound than Kant?
See, thinking isn't all that hard.

>>12484349

>which they proved to be objectively true.

Gooby pls. Ever hear of pessimistic induction?

>>12483900
artists are scientists, but scientists are not artists

>>12484358
>pessimistic induction
cope used by retards that couldn't understand math past calculus

Yes. Work natural scientists do is timeless in its value, art is transient and subjective in its value.

>>12484223
Galois vs. Rimbaud

>>12483906
>Milton is worth any number of newtons

>>12484368
what about unnatural scientists?

>>12484365

Yeah well, calculus is a cope used by spergs who can't get laid, NERD.
Fuck I hate this place. It's 95% pretentious undergrads who never read and 5% interesting schizophrenics shitposting about Hegel and Deleuze. I mean who the fuck uses the word objectively unironically?

>>12484368

Homer outlived Ptolemy and Shakespeare outlived Newton.

>>12484368
>art is transient and subjective in its value.
That's why nobody reads greek poetry and tragedy anymore. Those ancient works are just so stuck in their time.

>>12484387
>>12484390
They didn't and almost nobody does. Almost everyone in their daily lives uses some application of Ptolemy and Newton discoveries. Minority of humanists ever dwelve into Homeros and Shakesbeard for credits. Even that will change as time passess as things fall out of fashion.

>>12484424
there's plenty of science completely disregarded these days and plenty of art that is still relevant, idk how u came to ur conclusions

>>12484424

>Almost everyone in their daily lives uses some application of Ptolemy

Name three my nigga or step the fuck off from your retarded reasoning.

>>12484432
Yes because entire point of science is to postulate hypotheses and then prove hypotheses incorrect. 99.9% of it is utter bullshit and that 0.1% is under constant scrutiny by design.

>>12484440
Everyone who uses any kind of navigation for whatever reason.

>>12484441
>the products of science is timeless
>the products of science is nearly all not timeless and the products that have endured may not even be true

>>12484452
They are timeless. There is as much value in proving something is incorrect as there is to proving something is true. You don't understand what science is or how it is done.

>>12484441
so the development of art is because it is transient but the development of science is because it is timeless. did science teach you this?

>>12484461
you don't understand art

good argument. can't wait to see what you have up your sleeve next

>>12484377
cringe

>>12483946
based fucking pinker.

https://youtu.be/qE0UimODxNg

>>12484461

You stated originally, "Work natural scientists do is timeless in its value." So you are saying the products of science is timeless in its value. Then you said, "99.9% of [science] is utter bullshit". which is a commitment to saying that there are things in the history of science that lack value ("utter bullshit"), and hence are not timeless. And not just some things, you said nearly all. Then you say, "There is as much value in proving something is incorrect ..." which is a shift in the meaning of what you originally said. Your original two (contradictory) claims is about the entire products of the history of science. The last sentence is about a particular heuristic for confirming/falsifying some singular hypothesis ("some thing"). This distinction is even born out in scientific practice: students or scientists reading textbooks or papers, in terms of domain knowledge (not generalized scientific methodology), rarely need to know the entire history of some scientific subject (especially the stock of incorrect knowledge), just the current stock of knowledge.

>>12483900
No one ever comes close to Beethoven

>>12484249
>>12484286
>strawmanning out the ass this hard
"The essence of technology is by no means anything technological." Come back when you actually know what that sentence means, pleb.