The science of poetry, the poetry of science

[OwenEdwards]

To quote a postgrad chemist friend of mine, "Science is the best lies we've got yet for explaining why physical things happen". That's no insult to science; he is really pointing to the metaphorical nature of scientific descriptions of phenomena that Padel and Brian have pointed out. And as Brian points out, the scientific impulse is at heart poetic and instinctive - we investigate because we are fascinated, the techniques we use are the ones we use due to their facility not due to any "concreteness" (when we find better methods we cast out the old).

I think Mic isn't saying anything very different - science as an endeavour does not itself rest on "empirical" grounds (it does not explain its own framework of meaning - it doesn't need to particularly, we see its utility regardless), but rather on an agreement by those participating that we should just get on with doing.

Nigel Forde is also quite interested in science as a source of poetic inspiration.

[Antcliff]

Hi Owen.
Sorry, don't understand the sense in which, say, long established theory of how a heart valve work is a lie. If your chemist friend knows it to be a lie I am sure they would be very interested round at the cardiology department. Don't see the metaphorical descriptions is standard statements of it either. Sometimes metaphor is employed, sometimes a revision can be expected down the line..but let us not generalise. Science does indeed not rest on wholly empirical grounds, but that it not to say...as was being more than hinted at..that it rests on nae more ("essentially/fundamentally")than agreement by someone/somewhere. That was my point, indeed sole point.
Ant
exit stage left, inexplicably pursued by bears.

To quote a postgrad chemist friend of mine, "Science is the best lies we've got yet for explaining why physical things happen". That's no insult to science; he is really pointing to the metaphorical nature of scientific descriptions of phenomena that Padel and Brian have pointed out. And as Brian points out, the scientific impulse is at heart poetic and instinctive - we investigate because we are fascinated, the techniques we use are the ones we use due to their facility not due to any "concreteness" (when we find better methods we cast out the old).

I think Mic isn't saying anything very different - science as an endeavour does not itself rest on "empirical" grounds (it does not explain its own framework of meaning - it doesn't need to particularly, we see its utility regardless), but rather on an agreement by those participating that we should just get on with doing.

Nigel Forde is also quite interested in science as a source of poetic inspiration.

[Mic]

Yes you can follow the argument.

No, I can't. But I am prepared to believe this to be a failing on my part - not yours.

Mic

[Mic]

That's no insult to science; he is really pointing to the metaphorical nature of scientific descriptions of phenomena that Padel and Brian have pointed out. And as Brian points out, the scientific impulse is at heart poetic and instinctive -

As did I (and before Brian did, so there!)

At the heart of it, poetry and science are the same thing.

Einstein tapped in to the same thing that poets tap into (in my view anyway!) to produce his ideas.

[Mic]

Science does indeed not rest on wholly empirical grounds, but that it not to say...as was being more than hinted at..that it rests on nae more ("essentially/fundamentally")than agreement by someone/somewhere.

Hi Ant,

I am trying (and struggling) to articulate two (related, I think) points). The first is this idea that science can't actually prove anything (and, to be fair, has never said it could). What it does do very well is come up with some convincing theories. The second idea is that, given that science can't prove anything, in order to begin making sense of the world, we have to agree a starting point to build from i.e. we must simply 'accept' that 2+2=4. It is on this first article of faith that science builds. I think.

Mic

[Mic]

PS - I think these 'articles of faith' on which ALL science rests are called axioms.

We have to start somewhere and at that very beginning is belief. There in't no escaping it.

Mic

[Mic]

I've just found this. She puts it better than I do:


"Doesn’t Science give us facts instead of beliefs?
...The simple answer is that science has no evidence to the contrary. Science, not unlike religion, is founded on a set of beliefs—beliefs that were arrived at through reason, rather than revelation, but unproven beliefs nevertheless. These beliefs are the fundamental assumptions of science, which, by agreement among scientists, are the most reasonable assumptions that can be made as a basis for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, as philosophy of science in academia has been replaced by more “practical” or “realistic” courses, even scientists lack awareness of the difference between their beliefs and the enterprise of forming theories and performing research. Nevertheless, all theory, research and interpretation of results is colored by the unproven foundational beliefs."

http://www.sahtouris.com/pdfs/WFRArticle2008.pdf

(Not that I know her pedigree or anything...)

Mic

[OwenEdwards]

Sorry, don't understand the sense in which, say, long established theory of how a heart valve work is a lie. If your chemist friend knows it to be a lie I am sure they would be very interested round at the cardiology department. Don't see the metaphorical descriptions is standard statements of it either. Sometimes metaphor is employed, sometimes a revision can be expected down the line..but let us not generalise. Science does indeed not rest on wholly empirical grounds, but that it not to say...as was being more than hinted at..that it rests on nae more ("essentially/fundamentally")than agreement by someone/somewhere. That was my point, indeed sole point.

It's a "lie" in the way I went on to explicate - it's not the thing itself, merely a description that is (scientifically) not completely accurate because we do not have omniscience. It is a functional, helpful, effective simulacrum, but it is neither a) the thing itself nor is it b) entirely accurate. Rumour has it reading the whole of what someone says about something helps you to understand what they're getting at.

I'm not sure that Mic was "more than hinting" at scientific method (which after all is a different thing again from the natural sciences themselves) being solely an agreed creed (but then, see Mic's own explanation after your latest post). But if she was, of course she's wrong; scientific method is still used because it is proven to be effective.

So, really, it seems we are all agreed! Isn't that lovely!

[Mic]

scientific method is still used because it is proven to be effective.

Yes, of course.

My arguments have been about the very beginning stuff, which simply has to be 'accepted' because it can't be proven.

[k-j]

It makes my piss boil when people say that science is "essentially the same" as religion, poetry, etc. A scientific theory is subject to falsification; a poem or a religious doctrine is not. This is extremely important. Poetry and religion are all right as far as they go but if you want to understand how the world actually works then you need to be able to test your ideas. Idealism aside, Mic, we all know that the earth goes round the sun and what causes earthquakes. We learnt these facts by applying the scientific method, not by writing bloody poetry.

Incidentally what is it about the "beginning stuff" which you know "can't be proven"? Why can't it be proven? You might be right of course, but can you prove that it can't be proven?

[Antcliff]

Hi Mic.
For what it is worth I am with you on the other...best poetry is aimed at truth like science. On your team there.

On your last I would turn to PMs as I risk more bears. I was only suggesting that science did not rest solely on mere agreement..over which we might toss a coin and say otherwise...but that is not to claim that it has no role for axioms, different beasts, not proven in simple way, but also things that have more going for them than mere agreement. (Notably: their essential role on making sense of world that you mention.) I am was only resisting views of science which slide from question about role of proof/foundations to saying that science is just inference from what powerful/fashionable merely agree on. I balk at that. (Not say that it was your view either!).
Regards, Ant.

PS - I think these 'articles of faith' on which ALL science rests are called axioms.

We have to start somewhere and at that very beginning is belief. There in't no escaping it.

Mic

[k-j]

best poetry is aimed at truth like science.

Another statement I find quite enraging.

[OwenEdwards]

Incidentally what is it about the "beginning stuff" which you know "can't be proven"? Why can't it be proven? You might be right of course, but can you prove that it can't be proven?

Next you'll be quoting Irigaray with approval over the whole e=mc2 being sexist thing .

I don't think you need to be enraged at the idea that science and poetry both use metaphor to describe their object - because the object is plainly different. Samuel Johnson (in his Rasselas) writes rather brilliantly about the fact that we often see the oldest poets as the best whereas we see the newest science as the best.

[Mic]

Hi KJ -

This kind of discussion can get a bit hot. And I'm sure my way of pronouncing things as though they were universal laws is probably intensely irritating. To take the edge off this a little, I should just say that my philosophical leanings tend to move me towards agreement with the idea that science has belief at its heart. After that, it does the amazing thing, through scientific method, of revealing 'truths' about the world in which we live. It will then, no doubt, give us new ways of looking at these facts/truths in the future. And this is all good, in my view. I don't think poetry is really the same as science. I do think that it is trying to do the same thing: reveal something meaningful about the worlds within and without that we inhabit.

Mic

[k-j]

I don't think you need to be enraged at the idea that science and poetry both use metaphor to describe their object

Actually that is one of the few things I'm not enraged at. I agree with that. I thought that was the best point made in Padel's article.

Samuel Johnson (in his Rasselas) writes rather brilliantly about the fact that we often see the oldest poets as the best whereas we see the newest science as the best.

I read Rasselas and thought it was awful. Apparently Johnson knocked it out in about a week and I'm not surprised at all. I hate novels that aren't really novels at all, just expositions. Candide is better although I was a teenager when I read that... these kinds of books are better for kids than grown-ups I think. On your specific point, it strikes me as typical Johnsonian bloviating. Of course we see the oldest poets as the best, because we've forgotten about all the crap ones. And obviously the newer science is better than the older science, because - well isn't it just obvious?

[k-j]

Don't worry Mic, I've had this argument enough times that my outrage is now purely theatrical.

[OwenEdwards]

I read Rasselas and thought it was awful. Apparently Johnson knocked it out in about a week and I'm not surprised at all. I hate novels that aren't really novels at all, just expositions. Candide is better although I was a teenager when I read that... these kinds of books are better for kids than grown-ups I think. On your specific point, it strikes me as typical Johnsonian bloviating. Of course we see the oldest poets as the best, because we've forgotten about all the crap ones. And obviously the newer science is better than the older science, because - well isn't it just obvious?

Well that's precisely Johnson's point really, though you may fairly say that it's obvious - we have weighed the best of the past. But his point goes further: old poetry can be as good or better than new poetry because the object (human emotional experience? or whatever poetry's about, I don't know) is equally accessible then and now, whereas with science the improvement of method makes the object more accessible than it was. I brought it up simply as a good demonstration of why "science" and "poetry" do not seek the same ends - otherwise the newest poetry would always be "better" than Gilgamesh.

[k-j]

Well that's precisely Johnson's point really, though you may fairly say that it's obvious - we have weighed the best of the past. But his point goes further: old poetry can be as good or better than new poetry because the object (human emotional experience? or whatever poetry's about, I don't know) is equally accessible then and now, whereas with science the improvement of method makes the object more accessible than it was. I brought it up simply as a good demonstration of why "science" and "poetry" do not seek the same ends - otherwise the newest poetry would always be "better" than Gilgamesh.

Right you are. Agreed on all points.

Have you read Gilgamesh? I've picked it up once or twice and flicked through and not seen much in it from a poetic point of view... the same for the Egyptian book of the dead and the Popol Vuh... apart from its sheer antiquity and status as a foundational story, would you say it's good/fun to read? In the way that, say, Beowulf is, or the Kalevala?

[OwenEdwards]

Right you are. Agreed on all points.

Have you read Gilgamesh? I've picked it up once or twice and flicked through and not seen much in it from a poetic point of view... the same for the Egyptian book of the dead and the Popol Vuh... apart from its sheer antiquity and status as a foundational story, would you say it's good/fun to read? In the way that, say, Beowulf is, or the Kalevala?

My "main" edition is by Stephen Mitchell, who isn't himself the translator but who used scholarly translations of the three main strata of the poem (Sumerian version, and old and new Akkadian versions) and made a faithful composite. It's beautiful and seems to me also to be true to the more literal translations I've read.

But to be fair to the one critic on the Amazon page, I'll quote his most interesting criticisms...

"The problem behind is the following: Epic is a profoundly male literary form, whereas poetry is a profoundly female concept: Here, breath, openness, movement, repetitions, there, image, symbol, closure, law."
"The introduction celebrates "true heroes: those who risk harm or death for the sake of others. The anonymous, everyday heroism of fire fighters and police officers ..." The great commonplace of matriarchal esthetics: Only glory for protectors, only beauty for knights of fertility"

So yes, I'd recommend it! The story alone is immense.

[k-j]

It has fire fighters in it?

[OwenEdwards]

It has fire fighters in it?

I wish, if it did maybe it wouldn't have all those matriarchal aesthetics!

(Mitchell's dedication is to fire fighters etc.)

[Antcliff]

Well, thanks for expressing "theatrical rage" at the mere thought that the best poetry is concerned with truth...
You will understand if I respond with theatrical indifference. Here it is.....
Ant.

Don't worry Mic, I've had this argument enough times that my outrage is now purely theatrical.

[k-j]

Well, thanks for expressing "theatrical rage" at the mere thought that the best poetry is concerned with truth...
You will understand if I respond with theatrical indifference. Here it is.....

Impressive.

Seriously though, what do you mean by that? Can poetry not be concerned with deception, lies and falsehoods? If not, why not?

[Antcliff]

Hi
The theory of (say) how the valve works is indeed not the thing itself, not being a valve. Nobody supposes otherwise. Of course sometimes a theory may not be completely accurate. But sometimes is. We can hardly count all scientific theories as in any sense "lies" simply because some contain, and some do not, inaccuracies. You would not say that all stock taking records are "lies" because some are not entirely accurate and the books are not the actual stock. Or rather, you would it seems.
Regards:
Ant.[/quote]

Sorry, don't understand the sense in which, say, long established theory of how a heart valve works is a lie. If your chemist friend knows it to be a lie I am sure they would be very interested round at the cardiology department.

It's a "lie" in the way I went on to explicate - it's not the thing itself, merely a description that is (scientifically) not completely accurate because we do not have omniscience. It is a functional, helpful, effective simulacrum, but it is neither a) the thing itself nor is it b) entirely accurate. Rumour has it reading the whole of what someone says about something helps you to understand what they're getting at.

I'm not sure that Mic was "more than hinting" at scientific method (which after all is a different thing again from the natural sciences themselves) being solely an agreed creed (but then, see Mic's own explanation after your latest post). But if she was, of course she's wrong; scientific method is still used because it is proven to be effective.

So, really, it seems we are all agreed! Isn't that lovely!

[OwenEdwards]

Hi
The theory of (say) how the valve works is indeed not the thing itself, not being a valve. Nobody supposes otherwise. Of course sometimes a theory may not be completely accurate. But sometimes is. We can hardly count all scientific theories as in any sense "lies" simply because some contain, and some do not, inaccuracies. You would not say that all stock taking records are "lies" because some are not entirely accurate and the books are not the actual stock. Or rather, you would it seems.
Regards:
Ant.

Well, first I'd say as a philosophical dictum that no knowledge is perfect; for a theory to be completely accurate it'd have to be the thing itself. It may be accurate by current standards, in our present framework; Newton was right and accurate under his conditions, Einstetin had newer, more sensitive conditions which required more precision and broke Newtonian physics.

Second, you really must take care of context - I cited a flippantly poetic remark by a (fully-funded, Cambridge-educated, very reputable) science researcher, a thoroughgoing lover of science but also a knower of its limitations. I cited it partly due to the idea of scientific-description-as-metaphor, and partly as a good-natured contribution to the discussion of whether science was presuppositionless (it is not, we have all agreed). That is all.