In “On Art”, an essay by Edward O. Wilson in the anthology Biopoetics, Wilson writes, “I emphasize the expansive role of poetry to argue that whereas art and science are basically different in execution, they are convergent in what they might eventually disclose about human nature.”
How does that happen? Does it happen? What do they disclose about human nature?
I was going to propose that the disclosure of human nature is more apparent in poetry that science, but then I recalled psychiatry and counseling, Freud and Jung. Even after including these disciplines as science, I, a non-scientist find poetry more effective in disclosing what makes us tick.
Perhaps this presents a problem. Either out of ignorance or fear, or both, science for the average person is less clear, therefore less revealing and more dangerous.
Does biology or psychology do a better job in acting as a preventative to the faults of human nature? How about all the rest of science?
I am ready to propose that poetry, more apparent than science to the masses, has an edge in being effective in the prophetic. Another Shakespeare, not another Einstein, will be the one to save us.