2

Are mythological stories scientific explanations?

{It would seem so because Zeus, for example, was as early explanation of lightening.}

Or are they stories/rhetoric?

Or is story-telling or rhetoric identical to scientific explanation?

{It would seem so because the Big Bang theory, for example, is a story about the development of the universe.}

Geremia
  • 7,672
  • 2
  • 24
  • 52
  • You might be able to stretch the definition that way. It was a hypothesis based on observation, which was later disproved. – takintoolong May 22 '17 at 16:28
  • @takintoolong How was it disproved? Just because another, better explanation came along? – Geremia May 22 '17 at 18:23
  • 1
    as far as i know, the narrative that zeus creates lightning makes no predictions. The theory that lightning is the sudden conversion of static to current electricity as areas of differing charge try to equaluse, makes predictions, such as how to actually create or control lightning. – Richard May 22 '17 at 19:52
  • 2
    Quine thinks that they are. – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 20:07
  • @Richard what about pagan sacrifice? –  May 22 '17 at 20:44
  • divination even. –  May 22 '17 at 20:59
  • 3
    Zeus was certainly an explanation, but it was not scientific, at least by the modern meaning of "scientific" (and at the time there was no such thing as modern science). One could say that science (along with art, religion, etc.) emerged out of syncretic mythological protoculture, but calling mythology scientific stretches "scientific" beyond its usefulness. – Conifold May 22 '17 at 21:23
  • Ahh. Well that's why science is a compound process. A scientific theory needs to posit an argument, that makes predictions which are testable by experiment. But it also needs to be repeatable and reliable. Statistically 95% accurate or more. It also must be repeated and found correct by peers. – Richard May 22 '17 at 21:24
  • 1
    the locus classicus here is not quine, but levi strauss and the other anthropologists, e.g. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/782026.The_Savage_Mind –  May 22 '17 at 21:34
  • I don't think this is a philosophy of science question, it's a philosophy of religion and philosophy of anthropology question. The question is about the nature of magico-religious myths, whether they function in their cultural context (in the past or present) as a kind of rudimentary proto-science. This is not a demarcation issue at all because you are asking about the raison d'être of these myths not whether they succeed at it. Only a very basic notion of what actual scientific explanation is aiming at is needed to answer this. If my interpretation is right you should add different tags. – Johannes May 23 '17 at 06:20
  • @Geremia Yes, basically. Lightning is a good example. The theory was that a being was throwing lighting bolts. A new theory that lightning was electricity came along. We go to space now. No one found people in the clouds throwing lightning bolts. You could however reformulate the theory somehow as invisible beings doing some other magic. – takintoolong May 29 '17 at 16:23

4 Answers4

5

Quine famously drew a comparison between mythology and science as being different only in degree, not in kind. In his 1951 paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", he states:

As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.

The point he is trying to make is a subtle one. Since the beginning of the 20th century, philosophers of science have been trying to come up with a definitive way of separating science from pseudo-science and mysticism (See this post). This is know as the demarcation problem, and none of the solutions so far have been successful.

Quine is arguing that it is not possible to do so, because no matter how scientific and empirical an explanation gets, it is still based on our language, which is a cultural artifact, not a brute fact of nature.

Consider the following:

An ancient Egyptian observes the sun's movement, and proposes a theory that its movement is due to the god Ra's Sun Boat. A modern scientist observes it and proposes a theory that it is moved by mysterious force called gravity. In both cases, the only thing that can be observed is the sun's movement, both the god Ra and the force are abstract entities which cannot be observed. Both the Ancient Egyptian and the modern day scientist have to resort to unobservable metaphysical objects for their theory to be meaningful, otherwise they don't have a theory, they just have a bunch of observations. The concept of force seems more "rational" to us only because we have gotten accustomed in Western culture to concept, but to a truly neutral and empirically minded observer, the idea of a mysterious unseen vector pulling the sun through the sky is just as outlandish as a god on a boat. Both are cultural artifacts.

This is not to say that Greek, Egyptian, Nordic mythology are on the same footing as modern science, Quine is clear in that. Quine wasn't a mystically inclined person trying to bring mythology back to the same level as science. On the contrary he was a materialist, mathematically inclined logician. Modern science produces far better results than mythology in terms of being able to predict reality accurately, and one would be stupid to rely on mythology (or astrology, or faith healing, etc....) instead of the latest scientific theories in predicting reality. But that improvement in accuracy is the only difference, we have no other way of separating science from mythology. Quine's point is that we cannot separate theories into science and non-science, only into good science and bad science.

Alexander S King
  • 26,984
  • 5
  • 64
  • 187
  • if i'm not mistaken, modern (post-Einsteinian) scientists do not think gravity is a "force". that's newtonian. –  May 22 '17 at 21:23
  • 1
    @mobileink very true, but that just supports Quine's claim that Newton's concept of force is just as metaphysical as Homeric or Valhallic deities. On the very likely chance that physics improves beyond Einstein's relativity, then the post-Einstein notion of gravity will be relegated to the status of cultural artifact was well. – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 21:32
  • 1
    Newton wasn't trying to explain what Gravity is. He was only trying to find a mathematical formula which predicted its actions. Einstein on the other hand realised that if his model of the universe was correct, there ought to be some tiny differences between reletivity's prediction of the action of gravity, and newtons. Einstein turned out to be correct. Yet still science doesn't really know what gravity is. It appears to be a property matter, like inertia. And yet.. not. We have better and better models for it's behaviour, but as yet, no real fundamental truth about what it is. – Richard May 22 '17 at 21:44
  • in the passage you cite Q does not mention metaphysics, he mentions epistemology. very different critters. –  May 22 '17 at 21:47
  • As an aside, there exists no other intellectual thought process which comes even close to science, when it comes to providing insight into the nature of this reality we live in, whatever that might be. Anyone who believes divination or some form of solipsism provides a better understanding is simply navel gazing. There's nothing wrong with that, but it won't cure leukemia. – Richard May 22 '17 at 21:48
  • 1
    Where did Quine state that mythology is "a type of primitive scientific explanation"? I read the quote making the point that ordinary physical objects are from the point of view of empiricism (I assume he means here phenomenalism) qualitatively in the same epistemological position as Gods, i.e. both are posits. He is talking about the empiricist's perspective not the ancient Greeks. I don't think you can draw clear conclusions about Quine's anthropological views from that quote. – Johannes May 22 '17 at 21:48
  • In my humble opinion the obvious person to quote here would be the later Wittgenstein and his remarks on Frazer's Golden Bouch. – Johannes May 22 '17 at 21:49
  • you said "Quine famously stated that mythology is a type of primitive scientific explanation." Citation? –  May 22 '17 at 21:51
  • ps. i doubt he ever said that, but i'm open to correction. –  May 22 '17 at 21:52
  • @mobileink I am merely paraphrasing his quote. He states that the objects of physics electrons, molecules, electromagnetic waves etc,... those are scientific explanations – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 21:53
  • ok, then please say so. "Quine said X" is a very strong claim. –  May 22 '17 at 21:54
  • @mobileink fair enough. I'll edit. – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 21:55
  • fwiw i'm not sure he would agree with your paraphrase. he was a philosopher, not an anthroplologist (scientist). –  May 22 '17 at 21:57
  • @mobileink even after I edited? – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 22:00
  • sorry, wrote before i saw your edit. –  May 22 '17 at 22:01
  • 1
    @richard +1. i believe Newton rejected the idea that gravity is a force, at least at first. he just got descriptive equations, that's different. pretty amazing that we have these great descriotions of something we still do not understand. –  May 22 '17 at 22:05
  • Quine is talking about how he as an empiricist understands Gods and physical objects. But that's irrelevant here, anyone can interpret Gods as they like of course. The issue is how the myth "believers" interpret them, i.e. how to understand the role and function of the myths in some culture, not how Mr. W.V.O. Quine happens to interpret them. – Johannes May 22 '17 at 22:07
  • @Johannes can you define what a posit is? – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 22:08
  • Postulated entities, I think that is what Quine means by it. – Johannes May 22 '17 at 22:11
  • @mobileink Gravity is something absolutely fundamental to reality. Like magnetism. Magnetism is the thing that fascinates me. How can something 'work' against gravity to support a mass against it's pull, without expending energy, without 'working'. And in answering that we realise that magnetism is a force, and by commutation so must gravity be. Fundamental properties of reality. How those forces interact is where all the money is spent at the moment I think. – Richard May 22 '17 at 22:14
  • 1
    @Johannes Ok. And how is postulating that electricity is mediated by unobservable small objects called "electrons" than postulating that it is mediated by unobservable small jinns who obey the godess electra? – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 22:35
  • @AlexanderSKing This is 'God of the gaps' stuff isn't it? Are you suggesting that because electrons are not visible to the naked eye they don't exist? That would seem to be a fundamental argument against God wouldn't it? Electrons were 'predicted' by experiment and mathematical models. Just as with gravity, nobody knows fundamentally what electrons are.. They could be jinns. But science predicts everything about electrons. And repeatedly, and always. If you're using a computer, it is because science effectively modeled them, including quantum tunneling. Science controls the genie. – Richard May 22 '17 at 22:42
  • Are you asking why electrons are better than jinns from Quine's perspective?A few paragraphs later he explains: "it turns upon our vaguely pragmatic inclination to adjust one strand of the fabric of science rather than another in accommodating some particular recalcitrant experience. Conservatism figures in such choices, and so does the quest for simplicity...Each man is given a scientific heritage plus a continuing barrage of sensory stimulation; and the considerations which guide him in warping his scientific heritage to fit his continuing sensory promptings are, where rational, pragmatic." – Johannes May 22 '17 at 22:52
  • @Richard you're just confirming Quine's point: The ***only*** difference between science and mythology is that science works better than mythology. But epistemically we can't say that one is better than the other: You are no more likely to directly observe an electron or a gravity wave with the naked eye than you are a jinn or leprechaun. – Alexander S King May 22 '17 at 22:54
  • But this is a straw man. Science does seek to understand if Electrons are Jinns.. But it doesn't profess to know either way at the moment. Just as a matter of interest. Some cosmologists believe that the electron is 'the creator'. It may be that an 'electron' created the universe. And that would make the electron quite some jinn wouldn't it? – Richard May 22 '17 at 22:54
  • @AlexanderSKing as I said earlier. When you prick your thumb on a rose thorn and catch septicemia, you will take little comfort in the argument that science is indistinguishable epistemically from some esoteric form of modal logic. You'll ask for the good tablets. And then when you're fit again, you can go back to gazing at your navel. – Richard May 22 '17 at 23:01
  • I think this answer relies a whole lot on abusing the definition of *science* to be much broader than it actually is. *Science* is not attempts to explain natural phenomena, but a specific way of attempting to explain natural phenomena. You may still not be able to find a hard-and-fast demarcation of what is and is not, there will always be a gray area, but that is not the same thing as saying there is no such thing as non-science, only good and bad science. – KRyan May 22 '17 at 23:54
  • @KRyan I think this is the central point. The argument that science is 'just another' system of thought because it can't explain some things to our satisfaction is a straw man argument. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, only that if it does produce answers, they'll be the best we can get, with any rational system. – Richard May 23 '17 at 00:37
  • @Richard and Johannes I'm not following: Are you guys objecting to Quine's position itself or to my reading of Quine? – Alexander S King May 23 '17 at 03:26
  • 1
    I'm not saying your interpretation of Quine is wrong he was a scientific realist with some instrumentalist proclivities. My point was that Quine's views are a red herring with regard to this issue, he is only talking about how the empiricists understand the epistemological status of posits, not about philosophical anthropology. But as it happens I do strongly disagree with you answer. In my view myths/rituals/religious beliefs are not scientific theories or explanations, and equating them with proto-science and over intellectualizing is a blunder in my Wittgenstein inspired understanding. – Johannes May 23 '17 at 03:56
  • What he said. Sadly and often inexplucably i feel the need to defend the scoentific process from creaping anti-science. Science has given us weaponised smallpox and helecopter gunships... but it is arguably in the top five greatest human discoveries. – Richard May 23 '17 at 06:38
  • @Richard I think you should read more of Quine (or at least watch the video I linked to in my post toward the end) - he is as "pro-science" as it gets, he's just being honest about the limits of empiricism, that's all. – Alexander S King May 23 '17 at 17:56
  • I know it seems concieted, but.I know my mind on issues such as the efficacy of science. when i read anything now it is through the lens of 20 years of attempted free thinking and participation in online forums. You cannot converse with a book and question its motives. You could try and precis it for me if you feel commited to my education :) – Richard May 23 '17 at 18:31
  • @Richard: "Gravity is something absolutely fundamantal to reality..." Then what is it? Newton invented it. Aristotle would have had no idea what you're talking about. –  May 27 '17 at 21:08
  • It seems Quine was an instrumentalist. – Geremia May 30 '17 at 04:25
  • If Newton invented Gravity then Joseph Priestly invented Oxygen. – Richard Jun 05 '17 at 22:02
0

For this answer, my position is that a scientific explanation is defined as an explanation for natural phenomena that follows the scientific method and has various traits, most important of which are being falsifiable (testable), and that said empirical tests have been run and shown to not prove the explanation false (since we are being careful here, we do not say that it has been proven true; science cannot offer that, only offer that something cannot be shown to be false despite significant attempts to do so).

That is the definition of science. To call something that does not follow the scientific method science, for example to claim science covers all attempts to explain natural phenomena rather than only those explanations that follow this method, is to twist the term beyond its definitions and make it useless.

And it is clear that mythological explanations for natural phenomena were not produced by following the scientific method. Some of them are arguably falsifiable (we’ve been to the top of Mt. Olympus; it didn’t have any gods), but they weren’t posited in the same way that scientific explanations were. Scientific explanations are by definition asking to be proven wrong (and only those that have not been proven wrong despite numerous attempts to do so are considered valid). Myths were made to be believed, which is very much quite the opposite.

KRyan
  • 113
  • 4
  • 1
    It's not obvious here what it would mean for an explanation to follow the scientific method. The scientific method — and I doubt that there is *one* scientific method — is usually understood as part of scientific inquiry not scientific explanation. – ChristopherE May 23 '17 at 03:05
  • 2
    This is a poorly written answer and shows little or no familiarity with philosophy of science. You said "various other "traits", what are these other traits? Falsifiability and testability face a serious problem: the underdetermination of scientific theories. There is no one single scientific method - and some authors have argued that there is no scientific method at all. There are several issues as well when dealing with the demarcation of science. – Alexander S King May 23 '17 at 03:17
-1

no. scientific theories, by definition, are open to revision based on empirical evidence. myths are not. if you change the myths of Zeus, you get different myths, not better (more explanatory) ones.

  • 2
    not a super helpful answer imho. a) are we talking about the demarcation problem or some other salient quality of 'science' b) how has the history 'science' changed –  May 22 '17 at 19:50
  • sorry if i seemed like a complete jerk, don't think i am. is string theory "open to revision based on empirical evidence"? –  May 22 '17 at 20:41
  • 1
    i have no idea. but if it is not, then it is not a scientific theory. –  May 22 '17 at 20:44
  • i have no opinion about wrt jerkiness. but if you have asked a sincere question in the first place, without the gratuitous insults, i would have been happy to explain further. –  May 22 '17 at 20:46
  • i didn't think them "gratuitous" sorry. point about the grammar and coherence was just that *explanation* doesn't need to be "open to revision". i can create very elegant explanations which are entirely vacuous. whether or not it is, i suppose, explanation in the full blooded or real sense. i think that's what this means "For Aristotle, the stated goal of scientific explanation is to 'save the phenomena'. " –  May 22 '17 at 20:49
  • i.e. just that the goal of "scientific explanation" for Aristotle is to account for everything already known, not what we will later discover. i don't really know what i'm talking about at this point, though –  May 22 '17 at 20:56
  • thank you for dropping the adversarial tone; now we can have a discussion. 1st, it cannot be the goal of science to explain "everything already known". that would be pointless, no? if you already know it, why waste time investigating it? –  May 22 '17 at 21:02
  • i don't really follow why you say this. i doubt that many of the greeks felt that explanation cannot add to what we know. –  May 22 '17 at 21:06
  • the citical point is that there are at least 2 notions of explanation here. creation myths purport to "explain"how the world came to be. the diff is that scientific explanations are "actionable" - they allow us to predict and control. myths do not afford this. –  May 22 '17 at 21:06
  • well i basically agree anyway: myth is very bad at manipulating events, i just felt that as an answer it didn't make complete sense –  May 22 '17 at 21:08
  • as the last sentence is either wrong (as explanation needn't be testable) or redundant. i have other stuff to do tho... –  May 22 '17 at 21:14
  • i would suggest changing "more explanatory" to "more robustly explanatory" and i'd be fine with it –  May 22 '17 at 21:22
  • ok. point taken about "more explanatory". –  May 22 '17 at 21:25
  • So there's a single (correct or "orthodox") story of Zeus? Weren't mythological stories passed on orally? If so, wouldn't that mean there were slightly different versions (perhaps even incorrect or "heterodox" ones) of the story of Zeus? – Geremia May 30 '17 at 04:17
-1

Although we are [claims Barthes] not necessarily aware of it, modern myths are created with a reason. As in the example of the red wine, mythologies are formed to perpetuate an idea of society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class and its media.

So myth may overlap with some of the less savoury aspects of science, of socially constructed explanation. Obviously, myth making cannot be called a science after we've demarcated science from pseudo science.

Whether you call it, myth, proto-scientific would depend on your historical analysis, and likely your ideology.