Is a poet worth more than a scientist?

I am in the senior debating team at my school. the grand final is in a week. the topic is; "that one poet is worth a thousand scientists" we are negative to that so my team has to argue that scientists are worth more than poets.

I was wondering if you guys had any opinons, comments, thoughts, ideas on this topic it doesnt matter what you believe but i would appreciate it if you had a think about..

thanks!!

you could try something about the reality of scientist against the illusions created by poets. how poets give society nothing substancially useful. i dunno just ideas

sorry to offend you dwelt but i just through out some ideas, the many insights are just peoples opinions which you don't need poetry to have on.

Scientists of course dedicate themselves to working for reality and for society's needs. Although poetry is wonderful, and it's language seems to worth more than a gold mine, it only takes science and aspects of life and turns it into something beautiful. This however, does not mean poetry is more valuable...it is simply a desire in society, a beauty that keeps he world at ease. Science is the language of our lives, a necessity for our technological advancements, and all else that makes this world what it is today.

Scientists give us physical discovery, poets give us spiritual discovery.

All of us live in a physical world, scientists developed EVERY bit of the technology we use EVERY day. Without the scientist we would still be afraid of fire.

Poets on the other hand allow us to expand the scientist's imagination and allow innovation.

We can live without poets, albeit in a very dull way but we'd not be speaking here at all were it not for the guys who discovered electricity, radio waves, silicon (and how to use it), and so on ad finitum.

Who discovered that charcoal is good for writing? Who discovered that wood, hemp and reeds can be made into paper?

Only after they were discovered was the poet able to spread his wings, rather than passing down the fabled sagas by word of mouth from generation to generation.

Without scientists we'd still have old sages we'd listen to around a small lousy fire in a cold damp cave.

i dont know how true it would be either way because a poet uses there mind to better there emotions or others and a scientist betters the world not only for other but for themselves but at the same time ruins the world in ways, they take away environments that were naturally created and harms the planet but they also work to get rid of the destruction of the world. but a poet uses words never actions to make things happen. poets only go so far when it comes to doing things they are more or less waiting for someone else to pick up on their thoughts and bring it to action. You see the way I see it even though I write poems my self is that poets often use words to influence others or just say what they feels or think, most poets I think wright for them selfs and dont care what anyone really thinks. but they want to know at the same time what other think about it even if they dont admit it they are not confident enough to leave there wrighting alone and not let people read them. A poet comes up with ideas and a scientist picks up the ideas and uses them, so both really do have there flaws but which is of greater use thats really up to the individual I guess maybe this sound compleatly stupid but right now its just whats coming out.

I have to agree with Dwelt because I can't think of anything more. As poets we see into the things people have invented and the scientists invent the things poets might see improvements on. I don't know about that but maybe.

Poe writes about the differences between science and math, and poetry, and which is better, in the beginings of his stories Murders of the Rue Morgue, Mystery of Marie Roget, and his other detective stories. You can find them in there and use them, maybe they will be of some help.

I personally think that both are as equal in the world today. We don't view it so in America because our poetry or writing isn't used the same. We look at things spiritually or for beauty or whatever, but many south American countries take their art politically. They use their poetry to make statements about issues that help make that country better. Look at the music of Bob Marley. And science helps us in every aspect as well. Could we go without both, yes, but think of this: before man practiced science he practiced art. For more of the time than not, this world has used art to explore, search, and explain our world--spiritual and physical. It wasn't until the last about 300 years that man has turned to science. Hope that helps you some.

Honestly, what's the difference? We all come from God and have God given gifts for certain things, to learn certain things, discover certain things, write, paint, or whatever, for a reason. God's no lover of persons, why should we be?

*I'm not trying to be controversial or start up a riot or anything, just stating my opinion like I was asked to in the original post* :)

wow! this is awesome guys thanks so much for all the help i'll let you know how i go and what they argued etc...
keep it up it's much appreciated xoxoxo

They both have different qualities. I don't see the point in arguing this. They don't really have any connection whatsoever.

Poets can help peopl to see the inner thoughts of things through peace and tranquility.. whereas scientist shove it in your face.. poems are also easier to understand,.. and you dont have to be a genius to know what is being said.. how ever scientists have discovered some important things.. like how to deal with diseases.. so i think scientist coz if it wernt for them.. ppl would die more rapidly.. and there would be no use for poets..

Well actually they both help each other out! The poet imagines and creates with imagination. The scientist then decides and creats in reality. It's basically the creator of the design, and then the dreator itself. Does that make sense?

That actually makes a lot of sense lol. Although, I don't think the scientist 'creates' anything unless it a drug or machine or somethign like that (correct me if I'm wrong). I think they basically just discover natural things that are meant to be discovered.

"Lost time is never found and what we call time proves little enough."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Without any more research would you not agree that this quote is very poetic from a man who is remembered by many as a scientist? He was published in the Poor Richards Almanac. He also influenced the United States constitution along with other philosophers

THE ENLIGHTENMENT (the Age of Reason): Fostered by developments of the 17th century--Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Pierre Bayle, Benedict de Spinoza, Francis Bacon and John Locke--our founding Fathers were of an age influenced by belief in natural law, universal order and a confidence in human reason. "A rational and scientific approach to religious, social, political, and economic issues promoted a secular view of the world and a general sense of progress and perfectibility." (Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed., 2004)
This was an age of Scientific and Intellectual reason that far outweighed a persons upbringing in Christian or other belief. Yes, many of these people had a base growth in christian families, and many *were* religious, but the tenets of their beliefs were of the Enlightenment. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin who were amazingly influential on an international scale!

In my opinion poetry, or philosophies cannot limit itself to objective reasoning
Is the question of worth a subjective one, or an objective one?

At any rate I would not be able to put my two cents worth in without the ideology of freedom or the technology that has scientifically improved communication
The proof is in the pudding and only time will tell
God only knows where poetry and science will lead us

Good luck in the debate

Scientists discover things... poets make them beautiful.

//T.L.//