Science Or Literature - Which Is More Useful? (if You Can Only Choose One)

[cyber_electrons 0]

Personally, and in general, I would definitely go for science. I won't post too much detail as I don't have much time now....For example, in a dying situation:Science;I would use my science knowledge to find a way to overcome the problem. Use chemical properties of things to recover if wounded and use what I have learned in biology to find the best solution related to the body. Physics skills would come in when I venture on.Literature;mmm, interesting. I should cry out loud "I am dying like a .....". I shall write a poem about how I am about to die. The grave stone of myself should include a delicate poem for memorial. etc etc...But, which of those will have a higher chance of surviving? Literature won't get you anywhere except for thoughts etc...won't actually save you to tell the tale. But science, knowing about science may save your life and you can life to tell the tale. (*I am not against literature but I think it would be interesting to compare it with science...)What do you think?This is only one of many examples that I thought of, but I am out of time so leave any thoughts that you've got and I'll add more when necessary.

[truefusion 3]

I think the dilemma is more severe than what you make it out to be. I see Literature as the ability or knowledge that allows for any form of writing (looking up the definition actually fits with the way i see Literature as). That is, without Literature, there would be no Science books. Therefore, you should be able to see the dilemma. That would mean Science would not be able to thoroughly explain something; people would have to guess from any available math problem and (or) rely on word of mouth, or would have to rediscover things, et cetera. Yet, since we have to pick one and dump the other, if we pick Literature, there would be no technological advancement, et cetera. For the sake of history and convenience, i'd go with Literature in this case.

[cyber_electrons 0]

When I first thought of this question, I thought of literature as the study of language but without it, you would still know the basic language. When I use the word litereature, I mean advanced language. Actually, after your post, I think it would be better to put it this way:Would you rather have a more advanced science knowledge, or more advanced literature knowledge? - assuming we all have basic communication tools, ie basic language.(But I think that knowing something does not necessarily mean that I have to express it, why if I discovered science? It would only be available to me and I don't know literature to expose the findings...)However, continue debating. I am interested in how far this may go and the contents.

[truefusion 3]

Would you rather have a more advanced science knowledge, or more advanced literature knowledge? - assuming we all have basic communication tools, ie basic language.
(But I think that knowing something does not necessarily mean that I have to express it, wh[at] if I discovered science? It would only be available to me and I don't know literature to expose the findings...)

I think the terminology used here makes things too ambiguous to correctly or properly discuss any situation involving or arising from it. That is, "basic" and "advanced" are not defined (enough) to form a definitive black and white picture. What distinguishes "basic" language from "advanced" language? Or (and) what distinguishes "basic" science from "advanced" science? Even if we were to use the examples in your first post of this topic, the examples themselves do not paint a picture that allows us to derive meaningful definitions for "basic" and "advanced"—but it does practically lead us back to my previous statement.