Ed wrote:
> Just one more thought and then I'll shut up.
Oh, don't do that.
> I'd say that even theoretical and highly speculative science is not
> myth because....
I hope I didn't convey the notion that *I* think of science as
intrinsically a myth structure. Your remark,
> Nevertheless, I'd still make a distinction between myth and science,
> with science being concerned with the discovery of the true state of
> things and myth being what is placed on some original perceived
> truth whether derived scientifically, mystically, or whatever.
leads me to suspect that I did. I fully agree that science, qua
science, is "concerned with the discovery of the true state of
things".
What I think is that "Science", in scare quotes with optional
dingbats, is the name of a myth structure in 20th c. culture that has
only a tenuous connection to the pursuit of science by scientists or
to the study of basic (but real, textbook- or journal-level)
chemistry, physics & biology by anybody who ardently desires to grok
how the world works.
The relationship between jingoist, razz-matazz, American-
exceptionalist, TV- or rally-mediated "democracy" and a New England
town meeting strikes me as similar to that between science and
"*Science*".
While I'm weak on metaphysics, I'm a little better with epistemology.
Warren McCulloch's career-defining question,
What is a man, that he may know a number and a number, that he may
know it?
strikes me as a far better question than many others. [1] Each part is
qualified, viz. not "What is a man?" with no qualification. His is a
pair of questions that can be addressed with the scientific method.
McCulloch did, indeed, occupy a long career with those questions,
without coming to any single, revolutionary and conclusive answer.
But he didn't wander off into the mysto fogs and tried to dispel the
mysto fogs where he encountered them.
Keith also seems to have taken me amiss:
KH> It was good to read that religion and science are both myths.
I didn't mean that. "Science" (scare quotes and dingbats again) as it
is perceived by people who can't grasp the difference between mass
and weight (let alone the second law of thermodynamics [2]) has
become a myth structure across western culture.
How do I get at this point?
I venerate large old trees, especially ancient oaks and maples. I
don't believe that dryads actually exist. I don't believe in some
non-material entities or etherial substances that inhabit or inform or
vivify trees. But I behave as if I do believe something akin to all
that because old oaks and maples move me in a deep way. I feel in
some sense impoverished because there are no such trees near my house
but similarly uplifted because there are some on our land that I can
visit. Nevertheless, I think trees are a matter of living tissue,
biochemicals, water, soil and weather, not spirits or a deity.
The botany and botanical biochemistry and ecological factors are the
"true state of things". How I feel about such trees is inside my head
but valid and no less important to me. And I don't see any conflict or
contradiction in all of that.
- Mike
[1] E.g., Is there a god? What is reality? Is there free will? What
is the meaning of life? (if it isn't 42, that is.)
[2] Wasn't it the 2nd law that C.P. Snow held up as the typical pillar
of scientific understanding that people on the humanities side of
the Two Cultures failed to get, equivalent to a scientist saying,
"Shakespeare who?" It's sad that Schumacher sneers at Snow and
the 2nd law when he's right about so much. "More education can
help us only if it produces more wisdom." (SiB, p. 82)
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
