How has the term "Myth" (as in Mythology) come to mean a falsehood?

I never think about the word as a falsehood. I think about it as a “story” everyone knows, but nobody can prove its truth.

@poofandmook If you ask nearly anyone, they will say “Myth” is the same as “Lie”. For example, the ever popular TV show “Mythbusters”?

I think it has slowly transitioned from Myth meaning “Religious idea”, to “Folktale”, to “Lie/Untruth”. I think that is wrong…

If I am going to use the word “myth”, I would use it the same way one would use the phrase “old wive’s tale.” There’s no proof that it’s real, but a lot of people believe it and it works for a lot of people, so take it with a grain of salt.

I would probably say that about religion too. Personally, I believe in God and pray often. But there’s no scientific proof that it’s true, but a lot of people believe it and it works for a lot of people, so take from it what you will.

Christianity has done this. All older or different belief systems are myth (=falsehood) or heresy. A form of religio-cultural chauvinism. Hopefully a more multicultural society will counteract this.

I think it’s because as children, we are taught, early on (3rd grade?) about the Greek “myths.” We are taught them as stories that are not real. Just good stories without much relationship to reality (perhaps because we have nothing like those times existing today).

In contrast, contemporary religious stories are taught as real, not myths. We are taught that we have grown the the lie of multiple Gods to the truth of one true God. Lost in all this is the notion of archetypes, both in terms of personalities and in terms of storyboard.

Academically speaking, myth is much more than a “story” of how humanity came to be. It is the story that teaches us about the standard stories of our lives. It teaches about love and jealousy and egotism. It teaches about war and chance and bad luck. It teaches about heroism of many different kinds. It teaches about the great questions of life, such as why we are here.

In fact, it isn’t only myth that teaches these things, but all stories. We conceive of fiction as not being true, and yet, there is truth in all fiction, if you know how to see. If you look at fiction with the same eyes you look at myth, you can see the truth there.

If you use those same eyes to look at questions on fluther, you can see so much more than the story contained in the surface words. You can see the archetypes and patterns of life, and you can see what is going on based on very few details. Of course, we all may make up different back stories to explain a question, and maybe we’re all wrong, but that’s what we do—it’s just about what defines humanity—making meaning.

There is a war about meaning-making. Various groups of people think that they are the only ones with the correct understanding of the meaning of life. Those people teach their stories as truth and other stories as lies and myth. The things we call myths generally don’t have champions any more. Does anyone “believe” in the old Gods of Greece and Rome? Or even Scandinavia or Africa? Certainly not in the West. Perhaps Easterners in India and Indonesia may believe in multiple Gods, but Westerners are woefully ignorant of such things and worse, dismiss it as the beliefs of pagans—unworthy of attention.

Myths are the truths of peoples who no longer exist. True creation stories are the headlines of people who have an active group (religion) touting those stories as truth (belief). It’s a shame, because in defending their contemporary myths, many people miss out on the important truths of “dead” myths.

Perhaps by dint of every religious tale turning out to be a falsehood.

I think the word “myth” has ended up on par with ’“fairy tale”. It’s not so much a falsehood per se as just a story spread by word of mouth that you would do well to take with a grain of salt.

Remember that the Mythbusters occasionally do confirm a myth.

As a side note, as @wundayatta already said, myths are not always about how humanity came to be. Think of the works of Hercules, or Theseus and the Minotaur, or Orpheus trying to bring his wife back from the underworld, or Narcissus who fell in love with his reflection. All stories taking place when the earth was quite done.

Because the origin of myth always had the connotation of being a supposedly historical account not to be believed.

I think there is a difference between “myth” and “mythology”. When I hear someone say, “that’s a myth”, I think on the lines of an old wives tale (and those are what Mythbusters prove or disprove. When I think about mythology, I think about the stories from Greek Mythology that I learned about in middle school. I’ve never hears someone talk about Greek Mythology and say “that’s just a myth”.

Becauth it’h often derived from a thimple mythunderthtanding?

Many use the Word “myth” to discredit knowledge from time pass,

This is so because they have not understood and usually
very unwilling to receive the proper understanding of these stories.

It is therefore not merely the stories themselves that are false but the falseness lies in those who love to discredit a things because it goes against their belief system.

To accept it would mean a change in their entire life’s mindset some hard to receive.

Comon sense and practical living among men dictates that something that is accepted as totally false among a group of people will die its death amongs those of that generation.

If therefore that thing did not die its death, it means that there is much truth to the story.

Greek Mythology are base on much factual truth… and this is just the tip of the iceberg…

Let’s just hope humor doesn’t turn into a Myth on Fluther…...

Can you think of a single myth that can be taken as completely factual?

There are many I am satisfied with…

To others it may still be their understanding of myths…..
But I am not here to convince any…..

It is all about who is in academia. Academics decide their way of viewing the world is correct and scientifically founded so they put their own dogma on the rest of us.

I have a particular feeling toward this subject. I am Native. Our creation stories and our Oral Traditions are often called “myth”. To me this takes away from the importance of our Oral tradition and it suggests they are false. When, in fact, many oral traditions are held for thousands of years correctly. Not only that but these oral traditions have very specific societal uses. To me the term “myth” is insulting in this scenario.

Most myths were earnest attempts to explain the world, or history, by pre-scientific people.

I strongly disagree with the idea that myths are just vague “allegories” never intended to be taken literally or have science-like truth value. Many clearly were. And as it happens, most of those myths… aren’t true.

For example, many Babylonian myths (and, as it happens, the Bible) involve gods making humans out of clay, like “statues,” to be their servants. But to the Babylonians, this wasn’t an allegory for some scientific truth. They didn’t know about evolution. They had no evidence of where human beings came from. They were, however, familiar with clay and statues. They knew that clay resembled flesh in many ways. That humans were created as these enchanted “living statues” by gods actually makes a great deal of sense, if you are an ancient Babylonian. They were wrong, but that doesn’t mean the “gods made man from clay” myth ought not to be taken at face value.

See I take issue specifically with terms like by pre-scientific people because most tribal societies were in fact quite scientific.

I didn’t want to go there because it is time consuming and even though I quite clearly know what I am talking about people will probably argue with me, but I guess I will. Just a bit of education.

Many “myths” are quite accurate and by lumping them together as “not true” we are taking away the power of an oral tradition that has been passed down for thousands of years and remained accurate.

The story of Crater Lake is one example. This is the Klamath Tribes story of Crater Lake . Yes it is a bit fantastical sounding but it is also very accurate .

Not only are such “myths” fantastical but accurate accounts of history they often also hold a deeper value within the society that is quite complex.

An example would be placenames .Native people would often name the places around them according to oral tradition and events that took place at that location. Simply mentioning the name of such a place would imply one is also talking about the moral lesson learned during that event.

Here is an simplistic example. There is a place named “Hill”. The story of “Hill” may be a bit fantastical but it essentially says that there was a ceremony here on the hill. A girl did not follow the rules of the ceremony. She then turned into a goon. That was her punishment. Fast forward to modern day. There is a ceremony within the society. The girls are supposed to wear their hair down and loose but one girl decides she looks better with her hair up and thus wears it that way. Later at a birthday party grandma sits down and tells the story of “Hill”. The girl knows it is directed at her even though it is not explicitly stated. Everyone knows the story is directed at her. She is embarrassed and leaves. She learns her lesson. This is commonly how discipline and morals were passed down in tribal traditions. So such a “myth” was both historical and a valuable piece of societal norms, morals, and traditions. It is quite complex. It is certainly not a simple “attempt at explaining the world around them”. And in no way does the label of false apply.

@RedPowerLady
“It is all about who is in academia. Academics decide their way of viewing the world is correct and scientifically founded so they put their own dogma on the rest of us.”
Please. Surely you can’t really believe that.

Remember that academia and science are two sides of the same profession, and academic ideas are scientific ideas. You’re talking about a community where proclaiming anything without adequately backing it up will get people to point and laugh at you, and where making stupid irrational mistakes like subscribing to chauvinist dogma is almost guaranteed to cost you your career.

Do you think people would respect native American culture more if there would be enough native Americans in academia to change the “scientific dogma” to say their mythology wasn’t wrong? The Christians have been trying that, and it’s not exactly working out for them either.

well, it’s quite simple:

If you consider a story to be true, then it’s a true story (History, Religion). But if you consider it to be false (eg how God turned himself into a golden bull in order to have sex with a Phoenician princess), then it’s name, ie “Myth” becomes a synonym to “lie” and “falsehood”. I’m sure the ancients felt differently when they heard words like “Myth”, “Saga” or “Legend”.

@RedPowerLady
“This is commonly how discipline and morals were passed down in tribal traditions. So such a “myth” was both historical and a valuable piece of societal norms, morals, and traditions.” Emphasis added.
I can’t help but notice here that the moral lesson itself seems to boil down to “obey the traditions precisely”. Is there any point in the story that explains why the tradition shouldn’t allow for subtle variations, anything more substantial than “you’ll turn into a goon”, which everyone agrees will not really happen?

Disclaimer: My native culture has traditional lessons like that too, where adults pressure young and imaginative minds into following the traditions to the letter, without ever giving a single reason why. My opinion of these is of course the same.

@RedPowerLady, I don’t disagree that ancient people approached questions in the same vague sort of way that modern scientists do.

For the Babylonians and ancient Hebrew tribes who thought humans were created from animated clay statues, or that the sky was a solid dome, this was a “fact” in much the same sense that scientists use the word.

However, strictly speaking, “science” refers to a specific process of inquiry that I have yet to see any evidence of native American tribes (or any other ancient people) practicing to come up with their myths. Even the Greek philosophers didn’t really practice true science in this respect (with a few exceptions).

Also, I agree with @Fyrius that the Hill story is actually pretty worthless as a moral lesson, though it’s certainly the sort of lesson a conservative tribal culture would want to teach as the “truth.”

@Fyrius I’ve already had that debate on Fluther and more than once. In fact, weren’t you involved? In regards to scientific dogma.

@Fyrius @Qingu One reason I sometimes have frustration communicating on Fluther is because sometimes things are taken too literally. My “Hill” example, as I stated, was quite simplistic. Instead of focusing on the complexity of how a “myth” can carry on tradition, morals, societal norms, and discipline you take a tiny piece of a simplistic example and criticize it. In all truth the stories have much more complexity to them. But even if they did not you should think of it as an advanced method of discipline or method of carrying on norms. Compare it to modern society. We often tell our children “no” w/out explanation. Or we uphold societal norms in the same manner. We simply tell kids that putting their elbows on the table is rude. We don’t explain to them how it is rude or the history behind this rule. At least in my example you are learning both history and societal norm.

So setting that aside even if you don’t agree that you should tell a kid what to do w/out explaining why. I can understand that. I do argue that some stories are more complex with meaning but lets forget that for now. You still have to see how the placename example is more complex than a simple story at attempting to explain the world around them or a falsity. It has value within the community that is more complex, whether you agree with that value or not.

@Qingu But you are defining what “true” science is. Do you not see any bias in that? I don’t say that these stories are scientific. What I am saying is that these people are. Look at the Mayan ruins for example and their understanding of astronomy. What I am saying is that these people did have their own science. So we can hardly call them pre-scientific. And that they are not just primitives trying, and failing, to understand the world around them through fantastical tales. That is such a Western and quite frankly, primitive, view of how other cultures work. These cultures were and are much more complex that what they are given credit for. And so are their oral traditions.

@Fyrius @Qingu All – in – All the point is that there is complexity and obvious validity to these “myths” and so the title that implies they are simply falsities or primitive understanding of how the world works is too simplistic. It is in fact upholding a stereotype that tribal societies are somehow unintelligent and “primitive” I despise that word when in fact whether you agree with how they pass down values or not it is quite complex. And often quite accurate in terms of history.

Here is a book that explains such complexity.
Wisdom in Places
I’m sure this author and anthropologist can explain it much much better than I can.

oops perhaps I mean Aztec vs. Mayan? I often get them mixed up so please excuse my mistake if it is one.

@RedPowerLady
Well, for what it’s worth, I do acknowledge the cultural heritage value of mythology. I think this is to be said for native American myths as well as ancient Greek and Chinese myths, and even (cough) Christian ones. Mythology is awesome, you just need to see it in the right perspective and not actually believe it. I don’t think this is a point on which we disagree.

What I have a problem with is your blaming the academic world for the fact that your culture is not taken seriously, and calling them dogmatic and holier-than-thou.
The academic world isn’t even responsible for the usage of the word “myth” as a questionable story that’s probably wrong. The academic world uses more precise terminology than that. This is a colloquial usage.

And then there are some other points.

“I’ve already had that debate on Fluther and more than once. In fact, weren’t you involved? In regards to scientific dogma.”
(If you and I have had a debate on this subject before, I’m pretty sure I won it.)

“My “Hill” example, as I stated, was quite simplistic. Instead of focusing on the complexity of how a “myth” can carry on tradition, morals, societal norms, and discipline you take a tiny piece of a simplistic example and criticize it.”
Well, it was just a side note.

“you should think of it as an advanced method of discipline or method of carrying on norms.”
Advanced? Passing on norms and morals through fables with a lesson? Every civilisation and its dog has come up with the same method.

“At least in my example you are learning both history and societal norm.”
But you agreed the content of the myth never really happened. That’s not history.

“All – in – All the point is that there is complexity and obvious validity to these “myths” and so the title that implies they are simply falsities or primitive understanding of how the world works is too simplistic.”
Then I think you misunderstood the question, because that’s not what the title implies at all. @Arp isn’t saying all myths are false. S/He’s commenting on an existing usage of the word “myth” to refer to old wives’ tales, and wondering why people use this word this way.
If you hate this usage as much as you seem to, the thread starter even seems to be on your side on this.

@Fyrius I’m glad that our argument lies mainly in my usage of the term scientific dogma and such and not in the value of “myths” to cultures.

Can I first say If you and I have had a debate on this subject before, I’m pretty sure I won it
Haha! You are too funny. I usually argue to the point that we agree to disagree. But you may see things otherwise.

Advanced? Passing on norms and morals through fables with a lesson? Every civilisation and its dog has come up with the same method.
More advanced that a false “myth”, more advanced than a “primitive” trying to figure out the world around them. That is all I mean.

But you agreed the content of the myth never really happened. That’s not history.
No, no, no. That is not how placenames or oral history usually works. Typically the story does actually happen. It just evolves into a fantastical truth. Like the example of Crater Lake above.

I know @Arp isn’t saying myths are false. I am agreeing with her/him. I was disagreeing with @Qingu whens/ he referred to people as pre-scientific, when s/he said myths were not true, and when s/he said that they are simply used to try and understand the world around them. Basically I’m arguing in the same line as @Arp . Have we misunderstood each other?

Now to what you are more interested in:
What I have a problem with is your blaming the academic world for the fact that your people is not taken seriously, and calling them dogmatic and holier-than-thou.
The academic world isn’t even responsible for the usage of the word “myth” as a questionable story that’s probably wrong. The academic world uses more precise terminology than that. This is a colloquial usage.

I know that you have a problem with this. And I really don’t want to get into a “can science be dogma?” debate again. I will say that some science has been responsible for not taking my people seriously. I mean you cannot deny the history of that. Well maybe you can but I would argue that is incorrect. And that academics do quite often refer to oral traditions as myths. In fact many college texts do as well. Although I will say that I should not use my verbage so generally. Because it is not all people in the scientific field that do this. I just take issue with those who do.

@RedPowerLady
“Haha! You are too funny. I usually argue to the point that we agree to disagree. But you may see things otherwise.”
Lol. Yes, actually, what you said does sound more likely.
Incidentally, almost every debate I ever have seems to end in agreement to disagree, or radio silence, or flames. It’s a bit frustrating.

“More advanced that a false “myth”, more advanced than a “primitive” trying to figure out the world around them. That is all I mean.”
All right. But how so? Are they more advanced for not being false?

On that subject, didn’t your people too have their own (excuse me) primitive and naive attempts at explaining things they knew bugger all about? Didn’t they have their own explanations of the origins of the world and how lightning works and everything? Would you say that these myths are more primitive and less advanced than the Aesop style myths?

“Basically I’m arguing in the same line as @Arp . Have we misunderstood each other?”
Hmmmyes, so it seems. For a brief moment. But no harm done.

“I will say that some science has been responsible for not taking my people seriously. I mean you cannot deny the history of that.”
If you’ll indulge me for a bit more on this subject, I’d like to know what exactly I would be denying if I did. What science was this?

“And that academics do quite often refer to oral traditions as myths.”
I’m sure they do, but they don’t necessarily use that word in a judgemental way.

myth (plural myths)
1. A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.

Isn’t that what they are?

I think colloquial usage of scientifically well-defined terms and the misunderstandings that creates is the cause of a lot of misunderstandings about science. Another case in point: “Theory”.

Incidentally, almost every debate I ever have seems to end in agreement to disagree, or radio silence, or flames. It’s a bit frustrating.
Well what do you expect someone to give up their ego and say they bow to the power of @Fyrius? :P

Are they more advanced for not being false?
Pretty much saying that they are not false. And more advanced than being simply primitive. That they are complex. Trying to bit the “simple primitive” stereotype.

On that subject, didn’t your people too have their own (excuse me) primitive and naive attempts at explaining things they knew bugger all about? Didn’t they have their own explanations of the origins of the world and how lightning works and everything? Would you say that these myths are more primitive and less advanced than the Aesop style myths?

You know the “myths” that seem like they are trying to explain the world around them are typically used to create morals and societal norms. To record history (but in a fantastical way). I guess what I am saying is that I’ve never encountered a “myth” that is that simplistic. So the story of how raven became black may seem as though it is explaining why ravens are black but typically has a lot more complexity to it. Yes we do have Creation Myths. They too are more complex. But essentially Creation Stories do attempt to explain our origins. Those are more in line with Chrisitan Creation Stories. They serve a cultural purpose but on a different line. That would get into a debate of religion and whatnot I suppose. They are more about what is the importance and value of life and culture. That is not a simple question to answer. My mind is racing trying to think of a clear example, it’s history, and purpose. I suppose I would have a better answer if I could get all that out.

I’m sure they do, but they don’t necessarily use that word in a judgemental way.
I argue these definitions:
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I’ll answer the other point in another post. Have to take a brief break here. I think on these points we are more or less on the same page.

To your second point.
The best example I can think of is also highly controversial.
But it is the land bridge theory. Now there is quite a bit of scientific evidence as well as oral tradition that contradicts the idea of a land bridge. But the Native perspective is not taken seriously.

Another more common example would be Natives information on land sustainability. Many tribal people, for example, noticed that after dams were put in their salmon populations declined. Only Years later (just recently) are they being taken seriously.

@RedPowerLady , Pre-scientific means not using scientific method. Primitive people are often keen observers of nature, much more so than the average urban dweller. They know about start positions and have a good deal of knowledge about plants and animals. What they don’t do is create hypotheses and test them, which makes them pre-scientific.

@LostInParadise I beg to differ. Look at the use of herbal medicine. Native people were the first to use willow as aspirin. How do you think they figured that out? Can you really say that tribal people never created a hypothesis and tested it? They may not have used the complete scientific method but we create hypothesis and test them all the time as humans.

It doesn’t. It means a story.

Ive always wondered why Greek stories were myths but Christians were “truth” . They always looked pretty similar to me.

@RedPowerLady
Going on a tangent now.
“Well what do you expect someone to give up their ego and say they bow to the power of @Fyrius? :P”
Socrates once said: it’s the truth you can’t argue with; arguing with me is not so hard.
In a more rational world, people would raise their eyebrows in surprise at the idea that agreeing with something or not could have anything to do with ego. It’s just true or false, they’d say, or a good or bad idea, independent of your personal confidence or social position.
But I think there might be something wrong with my writing style that turns everything into a tug of war where people can’t admit “defeat”. It’s another item on my “to fix” list.

“You know the “myths” that seem like they are trying to explain the world around them are typically used to create morals and societal norms.”
Then, are your moral tales based on your naive-explanation stories? Doesn’t that get your ethics entangled with your world view, which is a “fantastical” version of what actually happened?
Are they all like the girl-goes-goon story, or does any of them back up its societal norms and moral with anything other than magic?
This is actually one of the things I dislike about the bible too – it mostly doesn’t bother making sense to people who don’t believe in the magic. I have the impression its usual given reasons why X is bad are “because Jehovah said so and you’ll go to hell if you disobey.” This makes it not so much a moral lesson as just an arbitrary superstition.
I liked the Tao Te Ching for not doing this. “You’ll appreciate food more if you’re not gluttonous.” “Your house will be safer if you don’t stuff it with riches.” “Your actions will be more effective if you know when to act and when not to act.” That actually makes sense in its own right, even if the magic aspects are false.

All in all it seems your people’s mythology (and maybe that of all people) have naive-explanation aspects, which are false, in combination with cultural heritage and Aesop aspects, which are not necessarily affected by the falsity of the real world assertions it makes.

“I argue these definitions:”
I see. But I think these definitions are not applied to actual mythology. I think they’re urban idioms for distinctly non-religious falsehoods that some people still believe are true. You won’t see the Mythbusters taking on the myth that the universe was formed from the dead body of the giant Ymir. That would be silly.
And if they would dare take on myths that are still believed, like communion wafers turning into the body of Jesus Christ, there’d be hell to pay.

“Now there is quite a bit of scientific evidence as well as oral tradition that contradicts the idea of a land bridge. But the Native perspective is not taken seriously.”
Ah.
But does the Native perspective have any scientifically valid weight in itself, not counting independent scientific back-up? Science isn’t usually very inclined to take other people’s word-of-mouth stories seriously, either.

@RedPowerLady , Primitive societies do not even have a concept of scientific law. It is all gods and magic. If some plant seems to have medicinal value, there are no double blind tests of it. I would venture to guess that for every plant that can be confirmed to contain some useful drug, there are dozens of others that were purported to have curative powers that have no more than a placebo effect.

@LostInParadise I think you may need to re-read history or at least put some stereotyping and prejudice behind you.

@Fyrius
I think I will start backwards if you don’t mind.

But does the Native perspective have any scientifically valid weight in itself, not counting independent scientific back-up? Science isn’t usually very inclined to take other people’s word-of-mouth stories seriously, either.
How can something have scientific weight without scientific back-up? Just saying…
I could answer this two ways. Yes there is science that backs this up. And Yes there is validity in Native systems of knowledge themselves (that later have been, to some extent, validated by science).

I see. But I think these definitions are not applied to actual mythology. I think they’re urban idioms for distinctly non-religious falsehoods that some people still believe are true.
I understand you believe this. I believe differently. I’ve seen too many texts, including college texts, that chalk up oral tradition to a myth, myth being defined more closely under these definitions.

Doesn’t that get your ethics entangled with your world view, which is a “fantastical” version of what actually happened? Are they all like the girl-goes-goon story, or does any of them back up its societal norms and moral with anything other than magic?
Pretty much everything I’ve heard (or yes read) have magic of some form in them. But there is a reason for this. Care to hear it? That is because for many tribes there was no written language. So these stories were passed down for thousands of years. Magic makes the stories exciting and easier to remember. I guess to see if they have more explanation in them with reason vs. just telling a person “this is so” you would have to read a few stories yourself.

It’s just true or false, they’d say, or a good or bad idea, independent of your personal confidence or social position. But I think there might be something wrong with my writing style that turns everything into a tug of war where people can’t admit “defeat”.
I think your writing style is very conducive to an open discussion. I don’t feel like I’m arguing with you so much as I am discussing with you. I mean that as a compliment. I think the thing is that you believe something must be “true or false” and really there is a lot of gray.

@RedPowerLady , I do not need to go back in history to find examples of mythic thinking. Fundamentalists and New Agers provide plenty of contemporary evidence. I sure hope that you do not believe in homeopathy or the Law of Attraction.

The difference with the past is that in pre-scientific societies there was no alternative. This type of thinking is all that there was.

@LostInParadise Primitive societies do not even have a concept of scientific law. It is all gods and magic.
This statement is completely false. There may indeed by gods and magic but that is not all there is. There was a good amount of science as well. If you believe otherwise then you do need to do some more research.

@RedPowerLady
“How can something have scientific weight without scientific back-up?”
By being reliable in its own right, even before being confirmed by science.

“And Yes there is validity in Native systems of knowledge themselves (that later have been, to some extent, validated by science).”
That’s the sort of answer I was looking for.
When you say “systems of knowledge”, are you still talking about the mythology?

“I think your writing style is very conducive to an open discussion. I don’t feel like I’m arguing with you so much as I am discussing with you. I mean that as a compliment.”
Well, thank you. But I think I’ll have to take that assessment with a grain of salt.
In this situation, I feel the same way, but if I had seen fit not to agree that there’s cultural value to mythology, I’m pretty sure we would be arguing now.

“I think the thing is that you believe something must be “true or false” and really there is a lot of gray.”
Well, that depends on the subject. Concrete things are always either true or false. There are shades of probability, but in the end there’s only one reality.
I suppose I do tend to focus on concrete things.

@LostInParadise
Would you say ancient Greece counts as “pre-scientific”? It predates modern science by centuries. But the Greek did take an interest in figuring stuff out for real, in their own primitive ways.
Many Greek philosophers were atheists, who knew their civilisation’s mythical explanations and thought “oh come on, that’s just silly.”

@Fyrius , The ancient Greeks were the first to think in scientific terms. Attempts by Aristotle, Plato and other philosophers to explain the world without resorting to the gods was a major breakthrough. For more on this, I recommend the book Uncommon Sense The idea is put forth that Greece was the only place that developed the idea of science. It makes for interesting reading.

@Fyrius By being reliable in its own right, even before being confirmed by science.
Well I suppose that is what I’ve been “arguing” all along, isn’t it?

When you say “systems of knowledge”, are you still talking about the mythology?
I was referring to oral tradition in that comment but that isn’t the only system of knowledge.

but if I had seen fit not to agree that there’s cultural value to mythology, I’m pretty sure we would be arguing now.
Yes you are probably right about that. Although i’m not sure how one could intelligently argue that POV and therein lies the intrinsic possibility of an argument.

@LostInParadise You might consider that we simply have more knowledge about ancient Greece than we do other Tribal societies so it is thus easier to understand how their society did have scientific value. That and there cultural values may be a bit more similar to modern America than that of other “primitive” societies..

@RedPowerLady
“Well I suppose that is what I’ve been “arguing” all along, isn’t it?”
I suppose it is. What I’d like to know is how it has scientifically valid weight in itself.
Was there any way to tell, before science had a look at it, whether story X was not just made up from scratch by storyteller Y in generation Z?

“Yes you are probably right about that. Although i’m not sure how one could intelligently argue that POV and therein lies the intrinsic possibility of an argument.”
Well, knowing myself, I’d probably [.75] have found a way. XD
Ahum. I’m not proud of being able to argue both ways on a subject.

@RedPowerLady , You have to understand the pre-scientific mindset. Disbelief in the gods is not an option, because the idea is literally unthinkable. The Greeks had the first atheists, because they were the first to imagine things occurring in nature that were not initiated by gods. Similarly, there is no concept of miracle, because there is no concept of a scientific law that can be violated. To primitive societies, everything in nature, great or small, is done by the gods.

You also have to understand the impact that the Greeks had. They were the first to try to find scientific laws. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese and Indian and New World civilizations did not come up with this idea on their own. The Greeks were the only ones to come up with the idea of formal proof. They did this mostly in a mathematical context, but some of the work of Archimedes used the same type of reasoning for simple mechanical devices. Considering the primitive tools they had to work with, their technical accomplishments, especially in the Hellenic era, were really astounding. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to a very close approximation. There was someone, whose name escapes me, who came up with the heliocentric view of the solar system, though his ideas never caught on. Hero build the first device powered by steam, though he considered it beneath him to devise practical applications.

@Fyrius
Was there any way to tell, before science had a look at it, whether story X was not just made up from scratch by storyteller Y in generation Z?

Take the example of Crater Lake. The way you can know is not made up is because there is, in fact, a crater there. And other geological signs that it was caused by an eruption.

@LostInParadise To primitive societies, everything in nature, great or small, is done by the gods. Maybe we are talking about different societies here. I think you are lumping together too many groups. Also I don’t think that “formal proof” needs to exist for science to exist. I think simple proof is enough.

@RedPowerLady
Well, yes, that’s how we, now, can know this story was not made up. But this is the scientific confirmation we were talking about earlier. It proves that in hindsight, the story turned out to be true.
But if we wouldn’t know whether or not there’s a crater there, and we would only know this story says there’s a crater there, then if that’s all we know, how likely should we consider it that there’s a crater there?

This is what I mean by having scientific weight in itself. A source of information has scientific weight if there are good reasons to believe what this source tells us is usually true.

I’m asking this as a matter of curiosity, not as part of an argument against mythological reliability.

@RedPowerLady , What is simple proof? Without formal experimental procedures, it is just too easy to arrive at erroneous conclusions. The rhinoceros is moving toward extinction because of the belief in the special properties of its horn. That is what mythology gives you.

Some religious nutcases can’t distinguish between a myth and a historical event. A good example is the lunacy for searching for Noah’s Ark in Turkey.