From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:37:12 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Erin,
>
>Now I'm confused. I don't know where I'm saying that stories and science
>are separate in the way you are suggesting. Redescription is the most
>powerful tool in the philosopher's toolbox and redescribing evolution as a
>story of creativity, certainly looks interesting and provacative. In fact,
>I have a book up on my shelf called Narratives of Human Evolution which
>basically does just that.
>
>What I'm trying to say is that science works well with rocks and literary
>criticism with texts. That doesn't mean scientists can't enage in the
>analysis of texts or literary critics in the analysis of rocks, but I doubt
>we'd call the scientist's textual analysis "science" or the literary
>critic's physical contribution "literary criticism." I certainly
>acknowledge that there's a thing called "scientific literature" and that we
>can look at it in a literary way. That's what the book I mentioned above
>attempts to do. Scientists can be interested in scope, but I don't think
>we'd want to call Einstein's speculations on God "science."
>
>Matt
>
So science should write their theories on stone
tablets and no more poems about rocks?
Kidding, but I don't think I really get what you
want yet...it seems like some separtion of
fiction vs nonfiction thing but I will think
more about it and see if I can figure out where
I am misreading you.
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:29:55 GMT