Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are differing meanings of the word "myth." One should establish if one's use of it imports the notion of falsehood or whether it is simply a technical term for a cultural story which explains something. It seems that people are not agreeing on a singular definition so are arguing at cross purposes.
No where do I see the meaning of myth in relation to fact, truth, certainty, non-fiction, reality. If there is a definition that says a myth is any of these things, please show me.
The Nazi history of the Jewish concentration camps at the time was that they were model villages where happy Jewish children played and their parents were gainfully employed helping the war effort. Most German civilians after the war claimed to have been totally ignorant of the holocaust. If the Nazis had gotten the A-Bomb before we did and won the war they would have stuck to that history. But is that what really happened? If you read (or watch) Howard Zinn's history of the US, you get a very different history than what is taught in public school history class. Which is true? What really happened.? Was George Washington really incapable of telling a lie? Who were the savages, the cavalry or the Indians? Who killed JFK? What's the truth? Does the truth always come out? If it doesn't, and if their are contradictory stories, isn't at least one of them a myth? If neither encompasses the whole truth and both are promoting a particular view or bias, aren't they both myths?
Also, not everything is explainable by logic and science. I have had a few paranormal experiences in my lifetime that I know happened but would not be able to prove. Relatives and friends who have had similar experiences can believe my experiences without question, and I can believe theirs. Others who have never had a similar experience could not believe them, and would either rationalize them or consider them imaginary, unproved stories. I am not illogical. In fact I'm probably one of the most logical people I know. My career was in computers where something either works or it doesn't, no BS or magical thinking involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Yes, history are stories of events that happened, not a myth that is an invented, imaginary, unproved story like the physical resurrection of Jesus.
Scientific theory is simply the framework for observations and facts, there is no myth involved in scientific theory, its not imaginary or invented like religion. And yes theories change all the time but the facts never change. Religion never changes even when presented with new evidence and facts.
I would categorize most hero stories with no basis for fact or any natural explanation as a myth, kinda like the Jesus story.
Economic production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services is a myth? It's an invented story? Imaginary? False?
Politics are just a set of activities that are associated with making decisions, not sure how this is even mythical.
Seems to me your are taking the word myth out of context and trying to apply it to every aspect of life.
The Nazi history of the Jewish concentration camps at the time was that they were model villages where happy Jewish children played and their parents were gainfully employed helping the war effort. If they had gotten the A-Bomb before we did and won the war they would have stuck to that history. But is that what really happened? If you read (or watch) Howard Zinn's history of the US, you get a very different history than what is taught in public school history class. Which is true? What really happened. Was George Washington really incapable of telling a lie? Who were the savages, the cavalry or the Indians? What's the truth? Who killed JFK? Does the truth always come out?
Also, not everything is explainable by logic and science. I have had a few paranormal experiences that I know happened but would not be able to prove. Others who have had similar experiences can believe my experiences without question, and I can believe theirs. Others who have never had a similar experience could not believe them, and would either rationalize them or consider them imaginary, unproved stories. I am not illogical. In fact I'm probably one of the most logical people I know. My career was in computers where something either works or it doesn't, no BS or magical thinking involved.
This is getting off the topic a bit but the same thing applies as i said. Yes, no doubt is the Nazis had won their histpory books might have perpetuated the lies. But suppose it lost power - then the truth would come out. The collapse of the soviet union means that a more balanced view of the 'Great Patriotic War' has come out,(stuff about Japan cut ) and the talk of not knowing anything because so much we can't be sure of, is too despairing to really be a valid approach. Never mind giving the unprincipled an excuse to deny anything they don't like. Which I'm sure you would never do and would be appalled if anyone (e.g the 'companies pay scientists to lie so all science is false' brigade.) did.
No where do I see the meaning of myth in relation to fact, truth, certainty, non-fiction, reality. If there is a definition that says a myth is any of these things, please show me.
The definition I linked to starts with
"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"
The Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (page 1190) has, "a traditional story of unkown authorship ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man or the customs, institutions, religious rites etc. of a people"
The AHD (3rd Ed) has, "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs or ideals of society."
Can you show me how that definition says that the story must be untrue?
You pick your own path and follow it. One man's truth is anther man's lies. Totally evident on election day. Yet half the country can't be illogical, right or wrong, they just believe different things, have different opinions which align with one of the candidates. You can't prove either Trump or Biden is sane or insane. You can only have an opinion on it.
The OP seems to have constructed a false choice of science or myth, believing religion to be a false myth and science to be true. But religion can't be proved or disproved. And scientific theories are overturned all the time. We no longer believe in a flat earth or leeches to cure disease. It's all a matter of belief and opinion in the present. Eg., you can't prove there are UFO's, but you can't prove there aren't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
This is getting off the topic a bit but the same thing applies as i said. Yes, no doubt is the Nazis had won their histpory books might have perpetuated the lies. But suppose it lost power - then the truth would come out. The collapse of the soviet union means that a more balanced view of the 'Great Patriotic War' has come out,(stuff about Japan cut ) and the talk of not knowing anything because so much we can't be sure of, is too despairing to really be a valid approach. Never mind giving the unprincipled an excuse to deny anything they don't like. Which I'm sure you would never do and would be appalled if anyone (e.g the 'companies pay scientists to lie so all science is false' brigade.) did.
You pick your own path and follow it. One man's truth is anther man's lies. Totally evident on election day. Yet half the country can't be illogical, right or wrong, they just believe different things, have different opinions which align with one of the candidates. You can't prove either Trump or Biden is sane or insane. You can only have an opinion on it.
The OP seems top have constructed a false choice of science or myth, believing religion to be a false myth and science to be true. But religion can't be proved or disproved. It's all a matter of belief and opinion. You can't prove there are UFO's, but you can't prove there aren't either.
It a fundamental logical flaw to dismiss science (and scientifically validated evidence) and pretend that it's 'believe or not'. Evidence counts. In everyday life that even science deniers rely on every day of their lives. They only deny it when it says something they don't like (Raff's Law) .
But suppose they stick to their constitutionally -guaranteed guns? Then they can never appeal to science or logic for support, (nor history or even current events) for support ever again, since they deny it all, when it suits them.
We are aware of that (people aren't persuaded, which I saw in some post just now) . Which is why we (goddless bastard all) think in terms of the peanut gallery whom, when they have emptied their chips over the richer seats below, go home and call one of their mates.."I heard a good idea on the Forum tonight..'
That's another false choice. Denying science is not the same as refusing to believe all science is gospel. Within science there is constant disagreement and evolution. Believing in things that haven't been accepted by science, doesn't make them untrue. I believe my own experience and beliefs. I don't reject science, I use it all the time. I just don't believe it answers all of life's important questions. Neither did Shakespeare. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio. Neither did Benjamin Brewster who in 1882 posed an idea that every computer science person has learned to their regret "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It a fundamental logical flaw to dismiss science (and scientifically validated evidence) and pretend that it's 'believe or not'. Evidence counts. In everyday life that even science deniers rely on every day of their lives. They only deny it when it says something they don't like (Raff's Law) .
But suppose they stick to their constitutionally -guaranteed guns? Then they can never appeal to science or logic for support, (nor history or even current events) for support ever again, since they deny it all, when it suits them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and the talk of not knowing anything because so much we can't be sure of, is too despairing to really be a valid approach. Never mind giving the unprincipled an excuse to deny anything they don't like. Which I'm sure you would never do and would be appalled if anyone (e.g the 'companies pay scientists to lie so all science is false' brigade.) did.
