Strictly speaking, the idea of a scientific poem is probably as nonsensical as that of a poetic science.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Science is not addressed to poets.
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's the exact opposite.
I would come to understand there is no poem separable from its source. I began to see that poems are not just an individual florescence. They are also a vast root system growing down into ideas and understandings. Almost unbidden, they tap into the history and evolution of art and language.
Science is for those who learn, poetry is for those who know.
I think there's a certain lyricism in the telling of a scientific story.
The man of science is nothing if not a poet gone wrong.
I consider a poem to be a kind of experiment where a number of elements are brought together under test conditions to see how they will interact to create meaning or relevance.
What actually makes poetry poetry is of course impossible to define. We recognize it when we hear it, when we see it, but we can't define it.
It seems to me that readers sometimes make the genesis of a poem more mysterious than it is (by that I perhaps mean, think of it as something outside their own experience).
Poetic knowledge is born in the great silence of scientific knowledge.