Reply to comment

In our discussion about comparing scientists to literary types (either authors or critics of literature), we forgot an essential point of difference.  Literature normally does have a definitive answer, or at least an intention.  We can actually ask a living author what message they meant to convey, what techniques they attempted to use, etc...For science however, there is no figure that holds answers.  To some, this figure is g-d (here's the "versus"...) and for others it is a universal and unchanging truth. Despite whatever one believes the source of truth to be, it is unknowable, while literary sources can be known.  Because of this major difference, although I see the many simmilarities, I am not sure that I can "buy" the story that the two are so alike.