Being innovative is more important than being right

Excellent, Con.My opponent's arguments center around this position, which I will then refute:"First; being right is a necessary precedent to innovation."Not necessarily; the arts are not necessarily under the domain of right and wrong. For instance, a child can create a story without utilizing correct English, proper grammar, or effective storytelling. Being an artist myself (in the areas of music), I do not have to follow the rules of composition: proper chord progressions, key signatures and the like, to create an awe-inspiring, impactful piece of music.As much as I would like to delve further into the arts, delving into the arts is not within my intentions. I will instead cut straight to the point of my opponent's arguments, the relationship between innovation and the knowledge of the right applications of methods and technology in engineering, and show how his arguments fail to justify how being right is more important than being innovative.The Importance of the Drawing BoardThink about your vehicles. Now, think about the fuel it runs on. Once you nearly expend all of the fuel in your vehicles, it becomes necessary for you to pay for more fuel to put in your vehicles to continue driving. Imagine going through this routine again and again until the price of gasoline spiked beyond what you could afford. With that in mind, think about the fate of automotive transportation if the idea of alternative energies never existed, even in the form of an afterthought. Sure, with the application of the right sciences and technologies, engineers can improve the fuel efficiency of the automobile. However, without even the consideration of alternative energies, the automobile would be doomed; the improvements would only delay the inevitable.Here's another thought: do you think that mathematicians would have been able to piece together a series of equations necessary to ease the processes of calculus, trigonometry, and algebra in engineering without the human capacity for innovation? My contention is that they would have been incapable of math itself without innovation. Mathematics were invented to address three human needs: [1]"1) Counting.2) Calculations.3) Measurement.All three needs directly applied to the Wright brothers' task of constructing the first airplane and all three needs continue to apply to the task of improving the performance of today's aircraft, automobiles, and any and all other related technologies; of course many models of aircraft failed, so did an unmanned Delta II rocket [2], but how does this negate the importance of innovation? I will briefly point out that innovation was the driving force behind the evolution of science and the technologies assciated with science (which are potentially pretty much every piece of technology)."There are certain natural laws pertaining to physics that must be adhered regardless of the level of one's ingenuity; so then being right about those laws is more important than being innovative."Well, humanity is right in following the laws of physics day after day because people are conformed by it; none of us can telepathically fly, even if we wanted to.In conclusion, correct science is essential for the success of innovation, but innovation was essential for the existence of science.And now, back to you Con!Sources1) http://www.math.tamu.edu...2) http://www.cnn.com...