Is strategy an art or a science?

Great Debates
1

Definitions:

Art:4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

Science:3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through See I’ve always thought of strategy as a science. The science of analysing situations and assessing thier best outcomes for either party (or parties) involved.

However, recently reading a small snap of Scientific American Online, they seemed to define strategy as more of an artform (Special Weapons Edition - I believe the quote was, “If strategy be the art of war, then weaponry is it’s science…”).

I never thought about it this way. But I can sort of see thier point. After all, strategies can be sketched out intuitively, as opposed to calculated mathematically. Very often there are (in real situations) subjective elements of a plan that need to be addressed before it is executed. Important inferences are made from these subjective elements. Surely this kind of reasoning implies it is more of an artform, a skill that is “mastered” only through gaining more experience?

However, I’m still not sure. Games, for example, only serve to complicate the matter (for me at least). Chess is a game of strategy (let’s not go into all the other little qualities it has). Yet if it were ever “solved” mathematically - that is to say, an algorithm could be devised to enable a computer to select the optimum strategy from the start (clearly this would have to be playing with “white” pieces) - then would that not make strategy a “calculable” entity? And what does that say for other “games” of strategy? Does that mean that optimum strategies can always be calculated (in the most traditional sense of the word), and if not, is that merely a calculational impasse?

Clearly there are many factors that are important when we consider situations. But does the subjective aspect of these circumstances render any “scientific approach” unrealistic? Is there any way to subtract the subjective nature of a given situation so that we can, in effect, “calculate” the best strategy?

I know that you could (theoretically) assign certain probabilities to a set of strategies for a given game, and that it is not necessary to always take the optimum strategy, it’s just safer. But if strategy is truly an artform, what enables a person to determine which optimum strategies to obey and which to ignore? When should he/she decide that it is time to take a more intuitive approach?

If strategy was indeed calculable, then these decisions would already be made. We would know the outcomes (or the probabilities of certain outcomes) for taking specific actions. But with strategy as an artform, things become more flexible. You need to create solutions, not compute them. You may have a given set of strategies sitting on your table, but you could choose to ignore all of them and come up with something entirely new. This process of invention would indicate that strategy was indeed an artform, but not (strictly speaking) a science.

So which is it, artform or science?
–P.S. my link for “art” doesn’t seem to be working on preview. If you need to check it out, go to Merriam-Webster on-line.–

2

Since good strategy always takes into account what the enemy is doing… and the enemy is human and prone to human views, mistakes and fears. Then by necessity Strategy cannot be a stupid mathematical formula. So in the limited science vs art I would say Art.

Naturally there are aspects of strategy that are pure “numbers” and science, still the “uncalculabe” factors and the ability to deal with them are what make great generals great.

3

Studying strategy is science, applying it is art.

4

Strategy is the art, logistics is the science.

5

Art and science share some aspect of aesthetic appeal. A visual artist’s measures his product in terms of its aethetics, sometimes balanced by message. But if it just doesn’t look good or have the right feel, it just won’t do.

Similarly, scientists and mathematicians can have an aethetic sense of the rightness of a line of thinking, and often will pursue a line of thinking based on intuition. After all, there are trillions of possible hypotheses: these must be narrowed down, and an aesthetic sense honed by years of intuitive experience is a good first filter.

Strategy can be looked at as a parallel endeavour to these, perhaps neither one nor the other, but still involved in aethetics and intuition. Yes, you can crunch all the numbers to see where and how you are able to attack, and if your force multipliers (including psychological ones) are correct you can calculate the damage you are likely to cause, but often you do not have the time, and must rely on innate sense of geometry and psychology to quickly make correct decisions.

6

May I offer congratualtions on the previous posters for a truly excellent and surprisingly simple answer?

I would have to agree. There are many scientific elements of warmaking, but ultimately there is an element of artistic measure involved, because uhman undertakings are perhaps beyond the scope of scientific understanding - too complex to be broken down. A general must balance logistics, politics, psychology, estimated tactical situations and both side’s capabilities. There ultimately are no ways to scientifically determine the proper course, no formula for success in all situations.

7

Varlos is correct.