Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA02801 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:04:23 +0100 Subject: Re: for the academics amongst us Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:58:58 -0400 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "memetics list" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010904145915.AAA4515@firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 09/04/01 10:41, Philip Jonkers said this-
>``In science one tries to tell people,
> in such a way as to be understood by everyone,
> something that no one ever knew before.
> But in poetry, it's the exact opposite.''
One way to look at it, I suppose, but, IMHO, both science and poetry are
attempts to explain, to the maximum number of people, different things.
But both have requirements to be understood.
It's just that some people like facts, and others like feelings.
And some people like both.
Wordsworth and Wilson.
Chet Raymo, science reporter/columnist for the Boston Globe, is an echoer
of my sentiment that both expressions of knowledge are equally
understandable, and equally important.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 16:09:14 BST