I think the main problem is one of semantics. To a scientist "energy" is a measurable, quantifiable thing. When someone uses a term like energy in a factual assertive (and non-metaphorical) way to describe a immeasurable, non-quantifiable concept, then the scientist finds it hard to accept. They would react in the same way to a statement like "stones can bleed".
There is a related word "power", which also has a precise scientific definition and yet also means "capability". Art has the power to affect the emotions, etc. But this is quite different from saying that "art radiates energy".
Now I guess we'll have a discussion about how the imprecision of language is what gives rise to it's richness and it's "power" to elicit emotion.
|