There is also, of course, the danger of certain renegades turning each twist of narrative or plot into quantitative data and compiling a sort of mathematical literary theory that does nothing but offer patterns of change. But I think (if we really do study literature and not just theory; I've noticed in my honors seminar that theory takes precedence over art) being informed by, for instance, neurological processes could lead to some amazing appreciations of literature. And, at least for me, the only reason I'm putting up with so much theory is so I can feel more interconnected with literature, as if each school of criticism is a medical tool that can help me both dissect and sew up novels. And perhaps art--if we assume art to be what is unsayable, or unthinkable, or what hasn't be said or thought--could inform the sciences by making the internal external, or, study-able, able to be scrutinized.
I suppose what Science is Culture has really done for me is instill a vehemence toward any professor that wants to keep things separate. I imagine myself asking any given professor her thoughts on where art and science intersect (i.e. how do you think biology informs literature?) and, should the answer be one of segregation, I'll storm out and throw my books and stride down the hallway like Captain Jack Sparrow!
Perhaps that wasn't the best way to lead into this question, but what do you all think of separating science and art?