RE: MD The mythology of science

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 00:56:07 BST

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD Quality events and the levels"

    Sam and all:

    Sam said:
    When I say that science is built upon a particular mythology, what I mean is
    that science as a
    culturally flourishing phenomenon is propagated by the telling of particular
    stories; that those
    stories embody particular values and goals;...

    Sam spun a yarn:
    Once upon a time our ancestors lived in the darkness of ignorance and
    superstition. Their lives were
    afflicted by all sorts of horrors...

    Sam dramatized:
    What I would want to emphasise in this story is the 'drama of salvation', ie
    that 'once we were in
    darkness, but now we have seen a great light',

    Sam concluded:
    My point is not to say that there is no truth in this scientific mythology
    (somewhat the contrary),
    only to point out that it exists, and that it needs to be evaluated and
    assessed. I think that it is
    largely unconscious (the extent to which it is unconscious can be gauged by
    how far you think the
    story is "the truth"), and, for better or worse, I think it needs to be
    brought out into the open.

    dmb says:
    Is there a fancy latin name for the kind of logical fallacy wherein one
    confuses form with content? Its standard practice to arrange historical data
    in the form of a story. I was instructed in this technique as part of doing
    my thesis in history. "Don't give away the ending" said the Professor.
    Everybocy laughed because it was a history class and so "the ending" had
    already occured long ago is already widely known. "Seriously," he said.
    "Pretend the outcome is unknown as you write about the events leading up to
    and surrounding the key events. It adds drama. You gotta spin a good yarn."
    he said. I mean, History is not magically transformed into mythology just
    because we arrange historical data in narrative form. Form and content.

    Another problem I'd have here is that your "Once upon a time" tale wasn't
    really about science as much as it is a narrative about our historical
    progress. And there I think technology plays a more prominent role than
    science as such. Unfortunately perhaps, Science, per se, tends to stay away
    from making claims about human progess. Asked about it, the average
    scientist would probably say something like, "Yes, its safe to say we've
    accumulated quite a body of data about certain things" rather than offer
    salvation or grand plans for a better future.

    If you want to see the way science has been imported into mythology in our
    popular culture, you don't have to go far. Think of all the UFO nuts. The
    many stories about villianous mad scientists, including the classic that
    kicked off the entire sci-fi genre: Frankenstein. I'd say the prevailing
    myths today cast science and scientists as something to be ridiculed all
    through school and feared as an adult. There's an anti-intellectual streak
    running through America that is a mile wide. Half the jokes on TV are at the
    expense of nerds, geeks, brianiacs and other such flattering names for
    intelllectuals. Scientists are pretty much disrespected in this same way.
    You might not think so based on the posts here, but in the wider world
    intellectuals are as likely to met with contempt as anything else.

    Also, the battle between the light and dark as you paint it strikes me as
    some kind of Zoroasterian version of Plato's allegory of the cave - or
    something. Actually such imagery could come from just about anywhere and
    must be as old as dirt. It would be strange if it didn't later appear in
    Christianity too. But again, couching well documented and widely known
    historical changes in such religious terms does not change it into myth.
    Form and content. You painted it yellow, then complained that it wasn't
    blue. Hardly seems right.

    Don't get wrong. I think we all live by myths whether we know it or not,
    even scientists. And we agree that we do better to try to "evaluate and
    assess", that doing so has a way of making us less enthralled and more free.
    But this observation applies to everyone and applies in a personal,
    psychological and spiritual way. Here we're talking about people, not the
    philosophy of science. Bringing archetypal material into consciousness
    simply has nothing to do with the difference between science and religion.

    And all little scientist found their little lab coats at the bottom of their
    heavy-water reactor. Then they went home wet, but lived happily ever
    after,.. until they all contracted massive, multiple forms of cancer and
    then died a slow painful death. Oh, and the magical kingdom refused to pay
    the medical expenses and so the little scientists little families were
    striped of all their assets and now live in a shoebox in the ditch behind
    their former homes. Sweet dreams,
    DMB

     

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 18 2003 - 00:57:06 BST