Reply to comment

I've been thinking extensively about the question posed on Thursday- the general issue of what really is the difference, in the end, between science and literary criticism, because although I see them as, as Darwin would maybe put it, homologuous structures, I think they really do engage with different parts of a person's intellect and emotional being. I think the answer lies in the exact role that subjectivity plays in the two different processes, something that with the understanding of the crack we over simplified. I think it's crucial that, in science, that while the process from which we draw conclusions is based on personal preferences and experiences, it is not something that should ideally remain in the end product. Supporting your argument in a literary paper is distinctly different from in a scientific realm because you can still have an excellent conclusion and argument even if the opposite thesis is valid. In fact, I've been told that, in order for an argument to be interesting and worth your time, in most cases one must be able to make a case for the opposite. I'm still working out exactly what this difference means, but either way I don't think it should be overlooked.