Science as Mythology

[wynn]

Red herring.

Right. Because the actual affordability and effects of science in people's lives are irrelevant.

 

[wynn]

Why should they?

Knowledge is amoral, neither good or evil... It's not the scientist's job to tell you how you should "feel" about it.

Except that they, usually indirectly, do tell us how we should feel about it: that despising ourselves and rejecting ourselves is acceptable, when it is done in favor of science.

 

[gmilam]

Right. Because the actual affordability and effects of science in people's lives are irrelevant.

But this is not caused by the knowledge itself. :shrug:

 

[gmilam]

Except that they, usually indirectly, do tell us how we should feel about it: that despising ourselves and rejecting ourselves is acceptable, when it is done in favor of science.

You must've had crappy science teachers. I've never received this message from any teachers I've had or books I've read. :bugeye:

EDIT: In fact, I'd like some examples of where "science" or "scientists" tell us that despising and rejecting ourselves is acceptable. Directly or indirectly.

 

[charles brough]

what a fascinating topic! I am really enjoying this discourse.

However, I am afraid that there is a certain term being used here that I do not understand: Myth/Mythology

I do not understand what many of you are trying to say.


Many thanks to lightgigantic for posting the quote. In fact, how the word 'Myth' or 'Mythology' is defined greatly impacts this conversation. It's quite likely that many, if not each and every one here, is operating off of separate renderings. In fact, this is indeed what I suspect to be the case.

Nasor, you used the "made-up stories about ancient heroes and gods" definition. This is perhaps the least informed usage out there, but, granted, one used by many laypersons in the English speaking world. It fact, it's a bit like saying "science is things I see in StarTrek".

I am not suggesting to go and become experts on this field of study, or go look it up now. That is hardly necessary for this instance. However, it would clear things up a great deal if the time was taken to take into account each author's own perspective on their using it. If we are truly to have an intelligent and humble conversation we can not simply assume that everyone else knows what we are talking about.

The terms 'Myth' and 'Mythology' have such a diversity in depictions and usage as to render the words nearly useless unless the time is taken to expound upon them with at least a modest explanation.

many thanks

Yes, you are into the heart of the subject, and as usual, everyone ignores it. In the real world (more than in the dictionary), "myths" and "mythology" are nothing more than outdated, outgrown "knowledge." A couple of thousand years ago our religious "mythologies" were considered advanced, that is, reality. The Genesis story was an immense improvement over the older Babylonian version, for example.

In other words, our understanding becomes more accurate in each civilization and is reflected in its ideology, our over-all-other ideology now being our secular/science ideals and way of thinking. Anyone perceptive enough should perceive that in our infinite universe, what there is to know is also infinite. So, we can never have "the absolute understanding of it and ourselves." What we have always done in the growth of civilization is to simply keep improving the accuracy of what we do believe. That is why we call it "theory" and try to avoid using the ancient and obsolete religion-word, "truth."

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

 

[wynn]

You must've had crappy science teachers. I've never received this message from any teachers I've had or books I've read.

EDIT: In fact, I'd like some examples of where "science" or "scientists" tell us that despising and rejecting ourselves is acceptable. Directly or indirectly.

That it is "normal" to eat meat, engage in non-procreative sex, that swearing can release tension, and such.

 

[RichW9090]

That it is "normal" to eat meat, engage in non-procreative sex, that swearing can release tension, and such.

Aha! That explains it. Wynn just needs to get laid, have a good steak, and tell someone to go Fuck Off!

 

[gmilam]

That it is "normal" to eat meat, engage in non-procreative sex, that swearing can release tension, and such.

Well, outside of the facts that:
1) Eating meat is normal.
2) My ex-wife couldn't have kids & my girlfriend is past menopause, so any sex we had/have was/is non-procreative.
3) Swearing is just words, but it does do good to blow off steam every now and then.

What does any of this have to do with science? :shrug:

 

[wynn]

Well, outside of the facts that:
1) Eating meat is normal.
2) My ex-wife couldn't have kids & my girlfriend is past menopause, so any sex we had/have was/is non-procreative.
3) Swearing is just words, but it does do good to blow off steam every now and then.

What does any of this have to do with science?

Science tells us that such behaviors are "normal" and desirable (that they supposedly have beneficial effects).

 

[wynn]

Aha! That explains it. Wynn just needs to get laid, have a good steak, and tell someone to go Fuck Off!

As much as I need a lobotomy.

 

[RichW9090]

Apparently, Wynn, you've already had that.

 

[gmilam]

Science tells us that such behaviors are "normal" and desirable (that they supposedly have beneficial effects).

Never heard "science" comment on such things one way or another. Personal experience tells me that they are indeed normal, and they do have beneficial effects.