This article is an extension of earlier discussion in the present journal regarding feelings in literature and, more broadly, the distinction between literary and scientific discourse. Valid though this distinction may be on some level, it is argued herein that it owes its very existence, in part, to a problematically narrow view of what constitutes science, one that not only eschews the life of feeling but that fails to abide by the primary obligation of the scientific endeavor-namely, to practice fidelity to the phenomena of concern. In this respect, it might plausibly be said that much of contemporary psychological science is not scientific enough and that, consequently, a more open and capacious conception is called for. More specifically, it is suggested that a portion of the discipline move in the direction of what might be called poetic science, a form of science that, in its very art-fulness, can do justice to the ambiguity, complexity, and depth that characterizes lived experience.