Science and literature: the importance of differences

Abstract

The long history of the relations between science and literature reveals a constant pattern of hostility. This paper argues that there has rarely been a genuine ‘conversation’ and that attempts to reconcile the fields have largely been unsuccessful. The effort to assimilate science to literature is understandable and in certain respects appropriate, but their radical differences, particularly via the distinction between fact and value, are permanent conditions. This paper argues that the healthiest and most fruitful relation between science and literature is one in which literary critics sustain their work of critique, not to enter the internal workings of science but to contextualize science and set against scientific activity aesthetic and ethical criteria.