From Crossan, (12-13):
This statement by Snow (science over art) is clearly opposed to Wittgenstein’s intention (art over science), but it brings home the problem most forcibly. And the problem is not the propriety of the hierarchy, one way or the other, but the very validity of the distinction itself. The most basic question for a theology of limit and of story is whether there is any such direct, ordinary, objective, descriptive language as over against some other type, whether it is considered to be a higher or a lower type. To concede objectivity to scientific language is to lose the battle before the first shot is fired. One will never prevail on such a field. But it may well be that there is only indirect (if you excuse the redundancy) language. In that case the real distinction would not be between the direct language of science and the indirect language of poetry but between language, whether in science or in poetry or in anything else, which is aware of its limits and language when it is fossilized and totally oblivious to the yawning chasm beneath its complacency. Art and science may not be two simultaneous and parallel way of knowing, but art and science may be, and in that order two successive moments of any truly human knowledge.