Weinstein in NYT: literature is scientific, for it traces the route by which we understand our world and ourselves. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/dont-turn-away-from-the-art-of-life.html …
@rensbod @agtgibson I think such a comparison doesn't do literature any favours. (on account of it being 1) a stretch and 2) servile )
-
-
@increpare@agtgibson We don't have to defend literature. We just have to point out that literature generates knowledge, thus science! -
@rensbod I think I can see@increpare cringe at that. Problem here probably that English lacks an equivalent of Wissenschaft/Wetenschap. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@increpare Meh. It's a subeditor's gauntlet to the reader-I'm not bothered by it. If saying 1)&2) about how it can "expand our resources> -
@agtgibson invoking science in a defence of literature opens one up to critiques of both eloquence & rigour. Quite a task... - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@increpare of both heart and mind" (i.e., substance of the article) as he does I flat out disagree with you on both counts. -
@agtgibson I'm more hung up on the weak invocation of science rather than the substance, which I don't disagree with.#sciencepoilce - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.