Mythology Of Science

Science has played a positive role in liberating us from the dogmas of the past. But at the same time, it has discredited the mythologies supporting almost every culture world-wide. The scientific tradition has many strong mythological features, but it is not (yet) complete enough to be considered a replacement. -- ChrisSteinbach

I'm not sure what aspect of mythology you refer to when you say that the scientific tradition has these features. It could refer to a historiography. It could also refer to a system of authorities. Or perhaps you have something else in mind? -- RichardKulisz

Myths have to do with mystery. They don't always solve mysteries, but instead help people experience a mystery and provide the justification and courage to continue in the face of it.

Mystery

In the case of science, this mystery exists in the dual reality/illusion or actuality/appearance. Reality is that which we know to be true, but is itself, ultimately, unknowable. Illusion or appearance is the impenetrable window through which we experience reality. How clearly we see through this window is determined not only by the physiological limitations of our thoughts and perceptions, but also by the fact that we are constrained by the very reality we are trying to explore. The details often lie beyond our grasp. In outer-space, for example.

What then do we make of this? Do we accept the philosophy of DavidHume or the skeptics and doubt everything? Science allows us to take action in spite of these problems. It builds a body of knowledge that we feel has firm foundation in reality. What has resulted is a mixture of ritual, fiction and historical accounts, informing people inside and outside of scientific practice (see http://www.scicom.hu.ic.ac.uk/students/essays/anna1.html).

Ritual

The ritual which unites reality and illusion is the ScientificMethod. A person, properly trained as a scientist, participating in this ritual could be said to achieve a state of enlightenment (Objectivity). In this state, the scientist is able to form not just novel ideas, but objective facts. In these facts, reality and illusion are no longer separate. Objective facts are neither completely true nor completely false.

Scientific education also harbours ritualism. Reenactment of experiments is an important part of getting a feel for objectivity and, thus, for becoming a scientist.

Other rituals exist, but they may be more practical than mythological (the use of logic and certain styles of presentation etc.).

Historical Accounts

In the scientific tradition, we believe that objectivity is the fountainhead of all scientific knowledge and progress. The history of science provides the justification for this belief. It is only very recently that people within the scientific tradition have started to question and rewrite the main episodes of this history. For the time being, it is, for most of us, considered legitimate enough that we can still talk of scientific progress. Hero stories, such as that of Gallileo, continue to enthuse, and will do, one hopes, for some time.

Fiction

Science fiction is a rich source of metaphors which inform those in and around science. Here, we have warnings to the scientist and stories that link scientific practice to those outside of it. (See http://www.freespeaker.org/lincolndouglas/technology/prometheus.html).

Science and religion are orthogonal

The scientific method has taught us how to play a number of tricks on Parent Nature. However, science and religion are orthogonal. The myth here is that our ancestors literally believed their naughty tales about Zeus and Shiva, and that they would have exclaimed "oh, how stupid of me" if taught a few scientific facts.

The models science creates to connect its test results together are not a religion, and anyone who thinks science creates a framework that can replace religion has a little bit to learn about skepticism. -- PhlIp

Good points. However, the idea that our ancestors did not literally believe in Zeus and Shiva is another myth; the Myth of Rationality. That myth is easily laid to rest; how many American believe in the literal existence of angels? Given this, how far fetched is it to consider science as having ritualistic functions for many (most?) people?

I "believe in" guardian spirits, but I don't feel the emotional need to endow them with elaborate stories or abilities. What do you "believe in" the term BelieveIn? means? -- PhlIp

It means the term 'guardian sprites' would have done just as well.

I don't feel the emotional need to endow [my beliefs] with elaborate stories or abilities.

I don't think you need to do this PhlIp. If you already have your answers, I don't think it matters where they are coming from. On the other hand, if you can interpret the symbols and metaphors of myth, then the elaborate details become context for those insights. The foundation of these stories in history is less important than the stories themselves. -- ChrisSteinbach

Science replacing traditional mythologies

It might be worthwhile pointing out that I didn't highlight the mythological aspects of science to show its similarities with religion. I am more concerned with examining what would happen if we accepted science as a tradition to replace all others. What would happen to those areas of knowledge left hanging?

I think this is a relevant question if you consider how scientific knowledge already has a much higher status than non-scientific. Contemplating science from a mythological perspective makes it, for me, less imposing. On this level I can consider other methods for fact finding. For example, the Far Eastern philosophy of the Tao suggests a non-intrusive investigative approach. Here the world around us must be examined undisturbed, in its natural habitat. Any attempt to shape events would make the results somehow less real. Knowledge derived from experiment then seems contrived.

We are ever optimistic that science will eventually fill in the blanks in our knowledge and perhaps conquer all the remaining mysteries of existence. But in the meantime what do we do? What becomes the status of the knowledge and procedures that support individuals and society today? -- ChrisSteinbach

No mythological symbols in science

Am I the only one to think this mythology heavily contrived? For a start, science has no symbols to worship.

I also thought the lack of symbolism conspicuous. I have a slightly different understanding of symbolism. Symbols provide a focus for attention rather than items of worship. I think it was JosephCampbell who said DontEatTheMenu. Symbols, it would seem, are beneficial in any endeavour requiring clarity and concentration. Why then is science symbolically sterile?

Kepler marks the first (and perhaps the last) association of science with symbology. But his use of symbology (the heliocentric system with the sun representing God) was focused towards his religious ideals. Ever since Gallileo, science and religion have been independent to a large extent. Had it been otherwise, who knows what science would look like now. Maybe the symbols of the church would have shifted focus.

Today the lack of symbolism would appear to make no sense. I have two guesses as to why things might be as they are. The first relates to the disharmonious picture of science I spoke of. Perhaps under such conditions the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes unstuck. The other possibility is that the very lack of symbolism is used (as, perhaps, it is used above) to symbolize the separation of science from religion. -- ChrisSteinbach

A scientist worships at the altar of sound reason. Repeat this mantra regularly until it becomes second nature.

Do scientists worship reason whatever its quality? It is, after all, not unusual to talk of either sound or erroneous reasoning.

Okay - I've added the word "sound".

There was a time when Reason (with a capital 'R') was something pristine and the autonomy of science was simply assumed. The certainty that Truth can be approached in a systematic manner no longer exists. This picture is becoming more and more mainstream, which makes it look like science has become secular. That seems like an odd thing to say, but I honestly can't express it better.

If this is the case, then I was wrong to think that mythology is the defining property of science; It might have been so in the past, but not now. Whether this is correct or not, I really can't tell. The mythological foundations of a tradition or culture are easier to analyse once that tradition is dead. --ChrisSteinbach

What are you saying? That what is secular cannot also be mythological? This does not hold for much of mythology.

Charles Muller's essay "Dealing with the Modern Crisis of Religiosity: Reflections from the Aum Case" seems relevant: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/articles/dayori1.htm -- TkChia

See ScientificMethod