Literature and Science vs. Science and Culture

In your opinion, who "wins" this debate? Why and how?

Huxley has a good point. He’s tired of science not garnering respect as a field of study. Considering the newness of the subject at this time, I can’t say I’m exactly surprised. He comes off insulting almost, suggesting that “practically men” are extinct in his current era. Huxley is obviously a well read man himself, easily referencing Milton and Shakespeare. He specifically calls up Arnold as well, specifically his thought of criticism and literature. He agrees on the factor of criticism being necessary, but he disagrees on the factor of literature being the only source. I feel that Arnold wins this debate. He takes a better stance of the argument, covering Huxley’s side as well as his own. Again, he shows respect for both sides of the battle. What he suggests is that Huxley felt that a knowledge of literature was wrong in that it was a person’s only knowledge. That they did not learn from it, but only memorized it and could run about quoting it as they pleased. Arnold disagrees with it, saying that “I mean more than a knowledge of so much vocabulary, so much grammar, so many portions of authors in the Greek and Latin languages, I mean knowing the Greeks and Romans, and their life and genius” so it seems as though Huxley had over simplified the argument on his side. So of course Arnold wins.