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 is the exact opposite.
This quote raises a lot of potentially interesting issues, such as the nature of knowledge and how
poetry and science deal with it. But for this essay, I’m going to focus on three slightly more
philosophical areas- the nature of opposites and differences, subjectivity and objectivity, and the
virtues and drawbacks of both. Poetry and science will be used to exemplify ĵthese points.
“Different” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “not the same as another or each other”, “opposite”
is defined as “completely different”. For the purposes of this essay, I am going to suggest that in order
for two things to be opposite, they must be mutually exclusive, as if they are existing simultaneously,
or can be applied to the same things they must have intrinsic similarities. A scientific scenario that
would exemplify opposites would be light and darkness. Light is either present or it isn’t. This then
demonstrates that absence and presence are opposite as they can’t both occur simultaneously. An
example of a differences would be that which exists between poetry and science. Both exist as ways
of looking at the world, and can sometimes be applied to exactly the same subjects. They are therefore
not opposites, as similarities can exist between them. They are different though because, as I shall
explain later, they present their subjects in different styles. By now, I should hopefully have
demonstrated that it is whether two entities are opposite or not can be ascertained if any overlap exists
between them. This therefore means that it is possible for two things to be different but not opposites.
Humans are obsessed with categorising things, but we are also plagued with emotion- meaning it is
virtually impossible to categorise some things in a completely unbiased way as there will always be
some intrinsic emotion influencing the categorisation. This brings me on to a very important point,
science and poetry are sometimes considered opposites because science is objective and poetry is
subjective. It is true that they are different, but they are not opposites. It would be impossible for them
to be opposites because they both exist as analytical approaches to life and I think in order for two
things to be opposite, there must be some scientific (and therefore objective) way for them to be
measured such that one can only exist when the other can’t. Light intensity can be measured using
machinery and devices to detect the luminous flux per unit area. The reason subjectivity and
objectivity cannot be measured like this is because they are ideas rather than tangible objects. It is
impossible to measure ideas, and so any perception we have of ideas in relation to each other would
be subjective. The way subjects are dealt with can be more reliably ascertained as subjective or
objective, but again, these subjects may well be more tangible, so they are less dependent on
interpretation. Subjectivity and objectivity are often applied to the same subjects, and by virtue of that
fact they share similarities, this therefore means they are not opposites. The difference arises from
how poetry- the more subjective method- presents these subjects compared to science- the more
objective discipline. Poetry can deal with objective subjects, but because it is based entirely on the
viewpoint and experiences of the poet, it will not be relayed objectively.
The collapse of the Tay Bridge in Scotland in 1879 is widely considered to be due to the failure of the
central girders, and it resulted in the deaths of between 60 and 75 people. This information is quite
scientific and objective, however, the poet William Topaz McGonagall chose to describe it in his most
infamous piece of doggerel The Tay Bridge Disaster. The existence of this poem shows how there can
be overlap between subjects covered objectively by science and subjects covered subjectively by
poetry. Indeed, there are subjects that a poet is unlikely to approach, as there are ones that a scientist
is likely to avoid as well, but the fact there is middle ground prevents subjectivity and objectivity from
being opposites. McGonagall actually got some of the information wrong, he wrote “That ninety lives
have been taken away” when in actual fact it was between 60 and 75. This error demonstrates how,
despite not being opposites, poetry and science can be different. Science, whose purpose it get facts
right would be very unlikely to allow for such an error.
Despite this error, it is difficult to say that one discipline is more useful than the other because the use
that someone derives from a piece of text is dependent solely on them and their preferences. This
rules out another potential opposite theme. Some could argue that poetry is useless, partly due to
errors like the one held within the aforementioned poem, but others might find it simply more
enjoyable to read. Like the ideas of subjectivity and poetry, it is impossible to form an objective
opinion as to which discipline is “better” as there is no scientific and unbiased way that is universally
true with which we can “measure” their merits. It therefore means it is impossible to declare them as
opposites with regard to the usefulness.
Of course, both poetry and science have virtues and drawbacks, but these will be subjective as, like I
said earlier, there is no scientific and universally true way of measuring two conceptual approaches
against each other. A merit of the subjectivity of poetry would be that it can explain subjective matters
e.g. love for which there is currently no scientific explanation. Sometimes science simply cannot deal
with subjective topics, as it doesn’t know everything and so we can only rely on experience and
opinion (which poetry provides us with in plenty) to rationalise them as best we can. A simple merit
of objectivity is that it tells the truth, if a fact is needed, science is the most reliable source from which
universal truths can be drawn. The few facts that exist in poetry are often obscured by literary devices
and ambiguity. This of course links to a drawback of poetry- due to the ambiguity, and the total
reliance on personal interpretation, poetry can be perceived as being vague, and one thing can mean
two totally different things to different people. Some people, such as myself, could (subjectively)
interpret this as poetry subconsciously reflecting the ambiguities and uncertainties of life. Both poetry
and science leave questions unanswered, but this could me more of a fault on science’s part, as it is
different to poetry in that it, by its very nature has the power to actually answer the questions with
THE definitive answer rather than A potential opinion based answer, which is what poetry offers.
To conclude, if two things are to be rightly considered opposites, they need to be mutually exclusive,
and in order to ascertain this, there needs to be a universally applicable way of measuring them
scientifically, so that all subjective doubt can be ruled out. It is difficult to assign subjects to different
disciplines, for exactly the same reason. There is also overlap between the two, so they cannot be
considered opposite. Psychology and biology can attempt to deal with love, as does Shakespeare’s
ubiquitous Sonnet 18. The two approaches can work for different people, which of course contributes
towards the theme of differences. In order for them to be opposite, one discipline would have to be
completely useless to everybody, and the other would have to be completely accessible and
omniscient to everybody, but even then, the notions of completely useful would be dependent on
different people. In light of this, I believe that poetry and science are different, but in disagreement
with the title statement, they are not opposites.
Written by Samuel Keeling with help from Mr Robin Parker
Sir Thomas Rich’s School
Oakleaze
Longlevens
Gloucestershire
GL2 0LF