Recently, I submitted an entry to a microessay competition, limited to 150 characters, and responding the questions, “Should society trust science? Why, or why not?” (https://crastina.se/the-crastina-microessay-competition-2020/). For some reason when I started writing, it came out as a poem. Here it is:
To question if we should
trust
in science
is to ask for compliance in science.
Compliance implies fact tried, so
we might deny defined signs
or acquire lies as if they were ties that bind, and
prize guise
or demonize “why”
to
permit defiance to
antagonize and
div ide.
But
if
objectivity in science hides,
what then of
arts and science
is this
rerereredundancy.
Let alone, art and its
subjectivity
free to feel, seem, mean,
differently
so that we can convene and
reconvene as
community.
Is it wise, then, in these trying times, to
rationalize
non-compliance in science
while we
chastise ally, let progress die.
So let’s theorize, for a while, if
nothing else, that
in dire times,
a trust in science is
obligatory alliance, to art
a reply
that trust in science is
ground to the flight, symbol in rite, dream at night, and
truce
after fight.
EDIT 2020-12-17:
I won!
https://crastina.se/the-crastina-microessay-competition-2020/winners/
If you enjoyed this, please consider buying me a coffee! (button on the right side 😉 )