Reply to comment

For me, science and literature are linked by the consciousness. I know that many see boundaries between the two, but I've grown accustomed to seeing a veritable stew of subjects. (Cue corny metaphor.) They all came from the same pot: the mind.

I think we are able to explore the world around us, through investigation (science) and through narrative/ description (literature) in ways that are not so different from each other. What we see, feel, and think about our environment is only the interpretation of our brain. We are not seeing what is there, but what our brain tells us is there. For most of us, this is probably quite close to what is really there, but for other's like Oliver Sack's patients (the man who mistook his wife for a hat), the world is quite different. 

Our consciouness, subconcious, unconsciousness-- that is what interprets, feels, and represents everything. Both science and literature are derived from that place...

I don't know if I'm explaining this very well. For me, science and literature go hand in hand. 

It is through written language that we are able to express ourselves, and written language is derived from our mind. Thereby, literature is a cognitive process incorporating the conscious, the unconscious, and the subconscious. Literature is science.

And, in the same way, science can be literature. After exploring Oliver Sacks, Mary Roach, and countless other science writers, I can hardly ascribe to the idea that science writing can't be interesting, can't be literary. Literature is an exploration of the self, and of the human mind... as is science.