Everything you just said is wrong. . .

[shemthepenman]

Excellent, poetry needs more people with scientific training.
Logical analysis is integral to critique, as far-too-many poems lack a logical structure.
While linear narrative is totally unnecessary (none usually being the best choice);
illogical connections, inaccurate meanings, and just plain old slushing-about are all too common.

And on the writing side of it, it's vital. For poems to communicate, the need to contain information
(even if  encrypted).

i entirely disagree. . . discuss.

[dukealien]

Excellent, poetry needs more people with scientific training.
Logical analysis is integral to critique, as far-too-many poems lack a logical structure.
While linear narrative is totally unnecessary (none usually being the best choice);
illogical connections, inaccurate meanings, and just plain old slushing-about are all too common.

And on the writing side of it, it's vital. For poems to communicate, the need to contain information
(even if  encrypted).

i entirely disagree. . . discuss.

"Can analysis be worthwhile?"
        - Simon & Garfunkle

Though also scientifically trained (see bio... oops, it's blank   ) I tend to partially agree with @shemthepenman here, which is to say, only partly agree with @rayheinrich.  Scientific training, when properly internalizeed,  is simply a philosophy outside its very detailed and specific fields... even a religion, believing - necessarily without evidence - in the future replicability of past experiments.  The universe grants no such assurance - it's dogma straight up, though it does seem to work pretty well.

So, does poetry require (a) philosophy?  Probably not.  Does *good* poetry require a philosophy?  Again, probably not... in fact, a poem would seem to *contain* a philosophy, whether it's meant to or not.

Now, it's quite possible the poem's philosophy is more or less congruent with the philosophy of science (or of Aristotle or Confucius, for that matter).  In which case scientific training may be useful to compare and contrast with the poem's.

So @ray is right that we need more (always more!) scientifically trained critics, for what they add and the way they enrich.  And @shem is also right to object that more than communication theory, or even a philosophy which encompasses the whole describable world, is also needed.

And how's that for paradiddle?

[ellajam]

Addressing only logical and illogical connections, I can see ray's point. I am willing to take the time to try to connect with the poem even when at first I can't find any logical connection between the ideas but when the poets themselves have no meaningful connections then I've pretty much wasted my time. If the poet is not conveying anything the sound of the nonsense better be exceptional for the poem to touch me. And personally, that's why I enjoy reading poems, to have an aha moment, or be swept away by the beauty of the language, preferably both, to be touched.

I know this is an issue because I have written poems and been the only one who could fully understand them. IME it's worth the time and effort to refine the poem so that it has everything, images, ideas, rich language and the ability to provide logical connections.

[QDeathstar]

This is relatively easy to prove or disprove.

Name one universally accepted great poem without a logical structure or logical connections. If there is one, qed.

[Leanne]

I'm an artistically trained scientist, and a scientifically trained artist... to me, they're inextricable.

Scientific thinking provides three main advantages when it comes to reading poetry:

1. Scientists are not afraid to be wrong. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, scientists will change the hypothesis and try again.
2. Science teaches objectivity. It's never entirely possible, but scientific thinking insists on removing the self and its biases from the equation as much as possible.
3. Scientists are used to making connections out of very little information. They're also quite capable of calling bullshit when the connection simply isn't there.

And artistic training has one great advantage over science:

Artists don't have to provide references. They're expected to just make shit up.

[Achebe]

This is relatively easy to prove or disprove.

Name one universally accepted great poem without a logical structure or logical connections. If there is one, qed.

Fern Hill
Or anything by Dylan Thomas

[Lizzie]

Shem, can you say a little bit more about your view on these matters? I'm having a hard time following a debate where one view is not being articulated.....