What Myth?

[Erthona]

What myth these days would suffice for the scientific mind,
that it would consider ample sustenance to sate its hunger?
Denying, as it does, that science itself is simply the latest
in a long line of myths stretching back as far as big brain DNA,
that is to say, the dawn of the homo sapiens, the upright
story tellers: telling stories to give some reason light,
and to keep that black dog fear at bay each night.
Still, everyone knows, that no recipe yet discovered,
can make sense from the flour of over-sifted reductionism,
and all that you have found when you find the next smallest thing,
is the next smallest thing, and of truth it contains…nothing!
Science is the circular logic of myths, a nonsensical nautilus,
but to be fair, it does produce the most marvelous toys!

© -Erthona

[Indie]

Interesting concept, both anti-religion and anti-science, while being completely pro-skeptic, which could be a religion in itself.

[Erthona]

Actually I am skeptical of skeptics. I worship at the house of pragmatic cynicism. I try and disbelieve 10 believable things before breakfast every day!

I do find the frothy of mouth, regardless on which side, who would lie and pervert knowledge in order to win, basically being on the same side whether they are religious or scientists. One should not underestimate myths. The Greeks used myth to answer the same questions we use science to answer today. We have the conceit to believe science is superior, yet its predictive powers, especially those related to disaster, are not much better than Myth. Saying something about an event after the fact is something anyone can do, after all, that is what myth is.

Thanks for giving it a read Indie,

Dale

[billy]

doesn't science have rules as to what is theory what is fact and what is bollocks
where as religion just simply states all is balls

i tried to work out the rhyme scheme

[addy]

This is great food for thought. Yes, science is based on empirical evidence, but rationalism is still as much a belief system as any other "-ism" or religion.
I'd struggle to call this piece a poem ... but it was a marvelous read

[Erthona]

"doesn't science have rules as to what is theory what is fact and what is bollocks" Science has restrictions on what it allows as acceptable, that is it must conform to the scientific method, however that only relates to proof. There is little restriction in terms of theory being constrained by empirical proof. From Einstein forward theory was unattached to proof as it had been in the past. Rather than a theory to explain the known facts, theory was now proposed as a guide to experimentation to find evidence to support the theory. The first of these for Einstein was the gravitational lensing, which was proved by an eclipse. Although Einstein's theories could be considered cold hard facts compared to such ideas as inflation, or especially "string theory", or any of the other ideas put forth that incorporate such things as other realities, dimensions, or branes.
Any rational person knows the Bible if taken literally cannot be valid (the earth was formed 6000 years ago)as there is too much observational evidence that invalidates it, however to say Evolution is the final word on all question related to origin, and to get frothy in the mouth when such an idea is challenge, is no different to me than religion, especially as the current proof does not support such blind adherence. The idea that life began in a soupy mix of long chain polymerase being struck by lightening and producing some form of self replicating molecules has as much chance of being true as the idea that a hundred monkeys with type writers will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. That is this idea which was once thought to be a sensible idea about the beginnings of life, has been for all intents and purposes disproved through experimentation. Currently there is no legitimate hypothesis that explains how life could have begun on earth, except to say it came here from elsewhere. If one is going to talk about the "Origin of the Species" one would need a valid idea about that ultimate origin. To say this thing we are looking at covers 600 million years, and we have a good theory for the last 60 million really doesn't inspire much confidence. Nor does all the missteps using DNA to determine such things as divergence. As it stands at the moment, we know damn little about man and his evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a poem

I would suggest in terms of form it is not a good poem. It does however have rhyme and uses cadence and rhythm in conjunction with that rhyme to create a loose form that separates it from proses, and so it is not just reliant on the lineation to create a superficial resemblance to a poem when it is not. In terms of content is more along the lines of what one would call a aphorism, or maybe an extended aphorism, or maybe simply a proposition, observation. I could have made it more poetic, but decided to bypass cuteness for clarity.

What myth these days would suffice
for the scientific mind to consider,
of ample sustenance to sate it,
and call "such" a worthwhile endeavor?

I could have said about the same thing in this form, but it would have made it more difficult to understand. However I will accept a judgement of "non-poem" if you will write down the definition that delineates the line one must cross to become a poem instead of prose, so that I might use it in the future for proof against prose being called poetry. I say against prose being called poetry, as I have yet to run across a case of the opposite :p

[addy]

Ah, good point. It is more accurate to say it has a few weaknesses in its poeticness, rather than losing its poeticness altogether. I happily concede

[billy]

somehow i don't see religion challenging the theory of evolution.

lines in art etc (poetry) are usually drawn in the readers eye and thoughts.
for me it looks and reads as prose poetry, which i see as a genre of poetry.
it has more than a couple of poetic devices in it's structure.

---

i should have said about religion; not challenging it in a way as to prove the Darwinian theory wrong.
as for rational. many erudite men have argued that the bible should be taken literally, specially the part about evolution and the beginnings of life on earth.

[Erthona]

I don't see religion challenging the theory of evolution, I just don't see evolution as infallible as some of it's sycophants would have you believe. At the moment it explains the facts as we know them better than anything else, I suspect that in a thousand years, if humans are still around and haven't regressed, it will appear as archaic as the idea that illness is caused by bad humors, and the remedy for that was blood letting. The problem with any theory is the phrase "facts as we know them". I suspect at the time blood letting fit the facts as they knew them. Religionist have not cornered the market on rigidity in thought, or rather you could say that religionist are just as common in the field of science as they are in religion, they simply have a different god. However, just because the subject they rabidly promote is different, or even in line with what I think, doesn't mean I find them any more appealing. I have had discussions with religious people that I found much more pleasant, although we disagreed, than discussions with dogmatic scientist that I generally agreed with. At least one expects the idea of faith to be part of religion, it is quite disturbing when it wanders into the philosophy of science.

I believe certain things because it is impossible to live life without doing so, however, I try to not hold so firmly to any of them that I cannot change it when I have been shown it is in error, or that it causes me much pain to do so. To invest so much in a belief that I cannot change it when I need to, is to make that thought my god. Even since the scientific method was introduced, there have been several paradigm shifts in science, and I suspect we are about due for one shortly. As in ages past, the old guard will leave fingernail tracks in the old one as it is pried from their hands, and some will never let go.

Dale

[billy]

while very little is infallible, things like evolution as a theory are probably as empirical as something could be. we may find in a 1000 years that it was wrong but i think that it's not probable. religion however is very infallible.

[abu nuwas]

Dale,

With absolutely no respect, this a crap poem,and a little too didactic for my taste.

You begin by raging against science, which I suggest has provided you with the lap-top you use, and a great deal around you. You then settle into an evolution thing.

Scientific method allows, and expects, that its findings will be refined, perhaps even contradicted, with progress. To compare it with religion, or myth, and try to set up some kind of equivalence, has no obviously rational basis.

As for evolution, perhaps I am made very differently from you; but if I see some kind of ape, the idea that that creature and I are not in some way related, seems just nuts. It is also interesting that every farmer or horticulturalist, knows v well that with a bit of care they can produce say, a black tulip, where one did not exist, or a different kind of sheep. But of course that's not species, right? So that's OK. I am now going to take my unscientific medication......

[billy]

i did experiments with fruit flies to prove god existed. it failed.
on the other hand it did prove many salient points about darwins evolotion theory

[Erthona]

Ed,

Thanks for the object lesson in support of my poem, I could not have asked for a more visceral response than that. I especially like the part where you make up things I didn't say, and then attack them. :p

Myth, btw, is a story we create to explain the world to ourselves. Despite science, I have not noticed a great increase in predictability of events, only that like myth, science offers explanations after the fact. I am hopeful this will change, but then I was not attacking science, I was attacking the people who treat it like a religion.

"Scientific method allows, and expects, that its findings will be refined, perhaps even contradicted, with progress. To compare it with religion, or myth, and try to set up some kind of equivalence, has no obviously rational basis."

The way people respond to it as though it were a religion has a rational basis, people are perfectly capable of making a god of anything, in fact liberals have done very well in making a religion out of politics. Unlike you Ed, I don't believe science has yet striped reality bare and shown us what lies beneath it. We don't even have a unified field theory for christ sakes. You are going to accept as true an edifice whose two most successful theories, General Relativity and the Standard Model can not co-exists, yet both are accepted as true? The science also presupposes that to be factual, something must be proved as factual by the scientific method, and anything that cannot be does not exists. Behaviorism anyone?

"but if I see some kind of ape, the idea that that creature and I are not in some way related"

So you are going to reduce evolutionary theory to recognizing a superficial likeness. That sounds more like sympathetic magic to me. The last common ancestor between humans and apes was 6 million years ago, and you are going to base that on the eyeball test? I guess most people before Darwin were just observing idiots.

" knows v well that with a bit of care they can produce say, a black tulip, where one did not exist, or a different kind of sheep. But of course that's not species, right? So that's OK. "

Ever hear of a guy named Charles Babbage, and a problem called "a difference in scale"?

One word on natural selection "Opposable Thumbs"!

Billy,

"darwins evolotion theory" ?!? Spelling aside, if you are meaning "modern evolutionary synthesis" then you are using incorrect terminology. However the failure in your experiment was simply from not getting a large enough grant :p

Dale

[abu nuwas]

Why Dale, thank you so much for your clear exposition of myth; I had had no idea! I was so pleased to learn, and in this first explanation, what you have said is of so much value --more, indeed, than anything else of what you have to say! I shall treasure it always.

Wasn't it amazing, that Transit of Venus? Did you get a good view? How on earth could they be so certain it would happen?

I think your pantalon may be in need of some denouement. You give the impression of believing that apes and men are cousins--not first cousins, but cousins of some degree, just as I do. You think--it is just your narrative of course -- that we had a common ancestor. Now we are different.

The idea that because, in 2012, a Theory of Everything has not be hypothesized and proven, this leads you to suppose that scientific method is no better than old wives' tales at explaining the stuff we come across in our world seems almost embarrassing. Did the makers of myth put your lap-top to-gether? Was it made by people just taking a shot in the dark? '' Holy fuck! I just made an internet, and this pc, it's just old bits lying around which got bunged to-gether when Billy-Jo was sweeping up! I heard a noise, and then --Heavens to Betsy!-- it started all a-sparkin', and a-talkin', and there twas!''

You do not think things are more predictable. But if you have a torch, and the batteries are new, you expect it to provide light when you turn it on. A torch in mint condition always will. When you get in your car, and turn the ignition, provided the car has been well-maintained, it will start. If you withdraw a person's head from the sand, they will be able to see again, provided they are still alive. Myth, I am afraid, is the last refuge of the Arts man.

[Erthona]

Yes, yes, technology does produce marvelous toys, I believe I said as much in the "poem".
"But if you have a torch, and the batteries are new, you expect it to provide light when you turn it on."
And if you poor the water out of a jug the jug will be empty. Such predictive powers. The standard model predicts the Higgs boson, thus predicating the spending of billions of dollars to build that big circle in the ground. Definite proof was sure to be had by March according to the BBC "By early March, they will have enough data to know for sure whether the Higgs exists or not". The sound of the non-announcement is deafening!

But then again, as I have already said, I am railing against people treating science like a religion, not against science. Asserting in an absolute sense that science will be able to overcome its current problem with a unified field theory is a belief much more akin to religion than it is to science, to say it will move beyond its current state is purely a matter of faith.

"You think--it is just your narrative of course -- that we had a common ancestor. Now we are different. "

We are different and the common ancestor is no longer extant. This is standard evolutionary assertion, that there is a common ancestor between humans and apes, and that chimpanzees are our closet relative in the Great Ape family, which would make them our closets relative as all the homo lines have died out it seems, unless of course big foot really does exists.

BTW myth is much more sophisticated than old wives tales. As we see it today, it may not map out the physical world very well, but it does map out the area of the human psyche very well. According to Sumerian mythology (circa 4000BCE) it takes exactly 360,000 years for the constellations to make a full circuit, which is of course is absolutely correct. How did myth make such an astute prediction?

People who think little of myth, know little of myth. People who regard myth as nothing more than fairy tales are mything something

Dale

[abu nuwas]

Dale,

I owe you an apology. It was patronising of me to use 'pantalon' rather than the the correct term, on the assumption that you would pick up on the 'pant' bit, and overlook that 'pantalon' means trousers, rather than knickers; I am reluctant to go back and edit; it seems a sneaky thing to do. So, please, in your mind, read it as 'petite culotte'. One likes to get the mot juste.

So, that Transit of Venus-- what! Predicted by some bod in Sumer 300,000,000 years ago? That's amazing. That man was a mensch!

We are at one over evolution, glad to note. Perhaps you opine that we are further removed than I hasarded, but we at one. Isn't it great when debates lead to a meeting of minds!

It is possible that the Large Hadron Collider will not find the Higgs Boson--and something will have been learnt, namely, that whether or not it exists, the Large Hadron Collider, as operated was not the tool to find it.

Sorry to hear you disparaging the old wives --I have met one 'the Auld Wyf' to wit, and she commanded the greatest respect. And toys-- now again I am grateful to you. I might have made a similar comment, but now, reflecting that if scientific method is demonstrated to work in a child's toy, that is a valid as in some mighty machine smashing up particles.

I see you and me in early times, walking along the beach, you in your petite culotte, me in my manly tunic.

"Look at that!" sez I
"Look at what?"
"That stuff"
"Do me a favour. Be a trifle more precise"
" This. I don't know what to call it."
"The Moon Goddess calls it glass, you oaf! It is her crap, you know, you should kiss it and worship her!"
"Well, I shall Dale. But--do you see how you can kind of see through it? "
" So what? She's the Moon. You do talk through your arse/ass"
"Maybe be we could make some-- this sand that ash--- it's where we had that great bonfire!"
"You are a cunt. I have just explained."
"But say--say-- you can make it anyway.."
"And what do you suppose would be the point of that?"
"I would make something do go in the window of my hovel, Dale."
" I always thought you were a bit flaky-- now I know it. Go your own way, with your stupid little toy. Now be quiet, because I've got a whole morning of myth-making ahead"

[Erthona]

A poem for manli 'ed!

I like a nice culotte,
as there is ample room
for my big cock
to loudly crow,
whilst swinging to and fro!

Just as it was always
meant to be,
while my planetary
balls swing free
amidst astonished cometary!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Not the transit of Venus, but they did predict eclipses.

Actually the secret of making glass came from the gods according to myth, in fact there is a whole list of things the gods gave man as is outlined in the Book of Enoch, Genesis, and the Sumerian story of the mes. Did you know that the given of technology to man is why "God" wanted to kill man by the flood. You might ponder this, and it is historical record, the Sumerians used base 12 as their mathematical system (this is a fact), it is one reason to this day we still have 12 months in the year, and 12 hours in the day, as well as 360 degrees in a circle. According to myth, the "giants" the offspring of the gods and men had twelve fingers, this is noted in multiple sources. Today we use base ten, quick, count the fingers on your hand.

But back to your dialogue. You are a silly twit, glass allows no air to move and leads to disease, that's why I use screen! Here is another thought, nearly all of our modern inventions can be traced directly back to Einstein. I suppose if you equate Einstein with science then it is accurate to say it was science which has given us all these wonderful toys. I guess I find it interesting that nearly all technological advancement can be traced back to a single source in most periods of advancement, in between the lulls, as we can with Einstein for this period. I also find it strange that all of his achievement can be traced back to a period of a few years, and afterwards basically nothing. Ha! The stuff of myth, that :p

Please take no notice of the man behind the curtain!

Dale

[abu nuwas]

[quote='Erthona' pid='97466' dateline='1339275956']
A poem for manli 'ed!

I like a nice culotte,

Dale,

The Sumerians were a clever lot. It is probably not altogether surprising that they chose the science of Astronomy to study, since they had clear view of the night sky. But they were on my side --early scientists, notwithstanding that Bacon had not yet laid down his formula for method.

Base 12 still lingers: 144= a gross. In many ways, it is superior to our decimal system, as you can divide by 2,3,4&6. A tray of oysters is a dozen.

I am rather ignorant of these things, but I would see Einstein as one of a galaxy of mathematicians and thinkers of that era.

I do wonder whether the world has not really been constructed by a mere trickle of people down the ages, in all areas of activity, so that this handful make true breakthroughs,, while the rest just tidy up, or improve and polish. The Ancients had their share of these: and although I wonder at their achievements, it is probably understandable, once one recalls that people have not evolved in the last few thousand years, so they would also have had the intellects of you or me, and maybe Einstein. They just lacked basic knowledge, and tools.

[Erthona]

Ah yes, I see how you practice science!

A poem for manli 'ed!
I like a nice culotte,
Dale,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what I detest about science, or supposed science (as science should be objective, not drawing conclusions one way or the other before proof is found)

Referring to the Sumerian King's list:

" Some of the earlier dynasties may be mythical; and only a few of the early names have been authenticated through archaeology."

The assumption is that because they cannot be "authenticated through archaeology" they must be "mythical", i.e. false. The failing could not be in archaeology, that is to say, if science cannot prove it to be true, it must be false (you don't find that a tad arrogant?). Troy also was a myth, and anyone who thought otherwise was ridiculed as believing in fairy tales, that is until mythical Troy was proven to have actually existed. Oops!

But of course the Kings list must be false, because certain kings are listed as living hundreds, if not thousands of years, and we know beyond doubt that this is impossible. Despite the fact that these long lived rulers (who are distinguished as gods) is also reported by the Egyptians as well as other sources. But of course gods are just a myth, therefore they are false. Good sound reasoning there. :p

Dale

[abu nuwas]

Ah yes, I see how you practice science!

A poem for manli 'ed!
I like a nice culotte,
Dale,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what I detest about science, or supposed science (as science should be objective, not drawing conclusions one way or the other before proof is found)

Referring to the Sumerian King's list:

" Some of the earlier dynasties may be mythical; and only a few of the early names have been authenticated through archaeology."

The assumption is that because they cannot be "authenticated through archaeology" they must be "mythical", i.e. false. The failing could not be in archaeology, that is to say, if science cannot prove it to be true, it must be false (you don't find that a tad arrogant?). Troy also was a myth, and anyone who thought otherwise was ridiculed as believing in fairy tales, that is until mythical Troy was proven to have actually existed. Oops!

But of course the Kings list must be false, because certain kings are listed as living hundreds, if not thousands of years, and we know beyond doubt that this is impossible. Despite the fact that these long lived rulers (who are distinguished as gods) is also reported by the Egyptians as well as other sources. But of course gods are just a myth, therefore they are false. Good sound reasoning there. :p

Dale

Dale,

I think one must be careful to distinguish science from 'supposed science'. As it happens, I do not think the example you give is an especially good one. I am not sure I should regard it as science, so much as history. In either case, historian or scientist, must seek to establish facts, and must not be tempted to rely on a single source, most especially if that source, thousands of years ago, may have had all sorts of reasons for making some record, which we cannot now guess at.

In everyday life, it is perfectly reasonable, if a man introduces himself, and says he is a carpenter, to take that at face value. If subsequently, one comes across a cache of false passports, he has some questions to answer; and if someone who knows about the craft, tells you that he does not know one end of a hammer from the other, the questions multiply, and it would be foolish to give him any credence. If, on the other hand, there are no false passports, but, instead, a friend of yours confirms that he has known him and his family for years, and recalls that he won the Carpenter of the Year award, it would be sensible to take what he has told you as true -- unless some momentous event occurs, contradicting all that.

With these King-lists, we are in the situation of having been told something: it might be OK in everyday life to accept it, subject to something contradicting it, but a historian has a higher threshold, if he wants to paint an accurate picture, and therefore should flag up ''may'' if appropriate.

There are, you will know, ample examples of peoples who trace themselves back to some deity. In the UK, all freehold land is held from the Crown-- except in the most northerly parts of Scotland, which once belonged to Norway. There, some land is deemed to be held ''of God and the Sun'' (Odal, or Udal land). I would like to see the first signature on the first sale...but I don't live in hope ... My commentary on the old testament, quite pious, states that in all probability, the names used early on, in fact relate to tribes, not people. The Egyptians solemnly tell us that Amenhotep (?) was the child of a god. A good historian must try to sift evidence.

I am with you in thinking that one should try and squeeze as much as possible out of what at first sight may seem to be bunkum. When I was at school, Troy had been discovered; yet still it was said that i was myth and legend, in all probability. I read Herodotus when I was about ten, and the blurb made a joke about him being 'The Father of History' -- but could easily, had the title not been taken, have been 'The Father of Lies'. Certainly, he spins a good yarn. But in the intervening years, many things have been shown to have a basis of truth, especially regarding Egypt, which he knew. Indeed, he has helped on the language side, I believe, since, his Greek shows vowels, which the hieroglyphs do not.

I am, secretly, rather saddened when I read really good accounts of the ancient Near East: I want all the stories, I don't want the dry we-don't-know-much -for-sure; but I can't have that, and accuracy.

Funny how no other bugger seems the slightest bit interested in all this...