The Poetry and Music of Science (McLeish 2019) is centrally about human stories of poiesis, of bringing into existence that which was not, and the narratives that weave the fabric of those stories. Its writing is itself an example of such a ‘narrative of creation’. On my occasional high-school visits to engage students on the history and philosophy of science, I am often impressed by their critical abilities and intelligence, but frequently wonder why at least some of the really bright ones choose not to study science at this level. Far too often, I get answers along the lines of, ‘I didn’t see any role for my own creativity or imagination.’ At this point, I know that something has gone terribly wrong in the message young people are receiving about science – that it is simply a body of ‘facts’ to learn, a set of known questions with right ‘answers’. Yet working scientists know that without imagination there can be no progress in science at all and that formulating the right questions, not answers, is the central and critical step in our inspirational calling to ‘re-imagine the universe’. What seems to have happened is that what I would now call the ‘second half of the scientific method’ – that is, the way that we test our ideas when we have had them – has dominated all discussion of the way science is done, so that the first, and more important, half has been effectively silenced. There may be no formal ‘method’ for having the ideas or formulating the hypothesis in the first place but that does not diminish the essential importance of ideation. Historical shadows fall across this assumed unequal dispensation of creative imagination between the arts and the sciences. It is one aspect of the twentieth century conflict launched by C.P. Snow’s (1959) Two Cultures Reith lectures and book, and which emerged a generation later in the ‘Science Wars’ between postmodern humanists and scientists. There are Romantic roots to the divergence as well: Keats and Poe both wrote famous poetic invectives against the science they perceived would ‘unweave a rainbow’, and this while their contemporary Wordsworth (1802) foresaw, albeit dimly, the day when science would inspire poetry as naturally as any other human endeavour. The historical journey to find its source finds the eighteenth-century poet and artist William Blake (1988) contrasting his task to ‘create’ in opposition to the ‘reason’ of ‘Bacon,

中文翻译：

---

创造力、想象力和上帝的形象：科学诗歌和音乐的概要

《科学的诗歌和音乐》（McLeish 2019 年）的核心是关于人类诗歌的故事，将不存在的事物创造出来，以及编织这些故事结构的叙事。它的写作本身就是这种“创造叙事”的一个例子。在我偶尔访问高中让学生了解科学的历史和哲学时，他们的批判能力和智慧给我留下了深刻的印象，但经常想知道为什么至少有一些真正聪明的人选择不在这个级别学习科学。很多时候，我得到的答案是，“我没有看到我自己的创造力或想象力有任何作用。” 在这一点上，我知道年轻人收到的关于科学的信息出现了严重的错误——它只是一个需要学习的“事实”，一组具有正确“答案”的已知问题。然而，在职科学家知道，没有想象力，科学根本就不可能取得进步，提出正确的问题，而不是答案，是我们“重新想象宇宙”的鼓舞人心的呼吁的核心和关键步骤。似乎已经发生的事情是，我现在所说的“科学方法的后半部分”——即我们在拥有想法时测试我们的想法的方式——主导了所有关于科学完成方式的讨论，所以第一，也是更重要的一半已经被有效地压制了。首先可能没有正式的“方法”来获得想法或制定假设，但这并没有减少构思的本质重要性。历史阴影笼罩在艺术和科学之间创造性想象力的这种假定不平等分配上。这是 CP 斯诺 (1959) 两种文化 Reith 讲座和书籍发起的 20 世纪冲突的一个方面，并在后现代人文主义者和科学家之间的“科学战争”中出现了一代。这种分歧也有浪漫的根源：济慈和坡都写下了著名的诗意谩骂，反对他们认为会“解开彩虹”的科学，而他们同时代的华兹华斯（1802 年）却模糊地预见了科学会激发灵感的那一天诗歌与任何其他人类努力一样自然。在寻找源头的历史旅程中，十八世纪诗人和艺术家威廉·布莱克（William Blake，1988 年）将他的“创造”任务与“培根”的“原因”进行了对比，