posted by John .
Why literature thinks of science in a negative or destructive way?
Can someone elaborate on this a bit? I'm not quite understanding it.
There is one quote but i forgot who said this:
"no science can replace a myth, and no myth can ever replace science."
Basically I think what it means is that literature and science are complete opposites.
Hope that helps.
I don't know if I or Jules Verne would agree with the proposition. Nor would I think that Isaac Asimov would agree.
My oh my, here's #1, a negative opinion about anything NOT science!
2. (a Russian viewpoint): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBR-4R5R8JW-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1f0ccd1bf7216cf3caf0738a92d4e457
3. (misconceptions): (Broken Link Removed)
NOTE: What made you say that literature thinks of science in a negative way?