Science/Poetry Talk
May. 29th, 2002 04:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fluffymarkThe talk was *fascinating*. Even if the speaker (Professor Hoffman, Nobel Prize in Chemistry and some equally prestigious award for poetry) sounded like he'd swallowed a thesaurus and peppered his sentences with extravagant words. A little bit pretentious but done with style and wit and worked magic!
The subject was about how the language of science and poetry has diverged over the last two centuries, and their current similarities and differences. In the past (pre-french revolution) the language of science and poetry were very similar. Scientists and poets alike were both Natural Philosophers, trying to describe the Unknown in nature. Then the Scientific and Industrial revolution happened, and Science became obsessed with what can be measured and solved, and Poetry went the other way and explored the mysteries of Nature. Scientific journals appeared, with content that was denied any sense of emotion as science became objective and removed. Nowadays the split in language between Science and poetry is massive. But there are still similarities. He showed examples of scientific papers that read like poems (full of latinised and greek words, to sound more impressive). And then poems about science (Ammon and Goethes in particular). Scientists and Poets alike are still struggling to find words to describe the world around them. And finding the right words can take many drafts, indeed the drafts of poems are much mike the drafts of papers, imperfect and full off scribblings and crossings out and juggling and shifting parts around. And it is a fact that both papers and poems alike are written in broken english. With all these similarities, there are still many differences. The Scientist tries to choose words with no ambiguity, that cannot be misinterpreted. The poet revels in ambiguity and hidden layers of meaning. And the future, can these two languages ever be brought back to a single whole? Probably not, and it's a loss in a way, as it may make things very pretty.
The subject was about how the language of science and poetry has diverged over the last two centuries, and their current similarities and differences. In the past (pre-french revolution) the language of science and poetry were very similar. Scientists and poets alike were both Natural Philosophers, trying to describe the Unknown in nature. Then the Scientific and Industrial revolution happened, and Science became obsessed with what can be measured and solved, and Poetry went the other way and explored the mysteries of Nature. Scientific journals appeared, with content that was denied any sense of emotion as science became objective and removed. Nowadays the split in language between Science and poetry is massive. But there are still similarities. He showed examples of scientific papers that read like poems (full of latinised and greek words, to sound more impressive). And then poems about science (Ammon and Goethes in particular). Scientists and Poets alike are still struggling to find words to describe the world around them. And finding the right words can take many drafts, indeed the drafts of poems are much mike the drafts of papers, imperfect and full off scribblings and crossings out and juggling and shifting parts around. And it is a fact that both papers and poems alike are written in broken english. With all these similarities, there are still many differences. The Scientist tries to choose words with no ambiguity, that cannot be misinterpreted. The poet revels in ambiguity and hidden layers of meaning. And the future, can these two languages ever be brought back to a single whole? Probably not, and it's a loss in a way, as it may make things very pretty.
