Humanities majors: Is science a myth?

Question

You don't necessarily have to be a college graduate to answer this, but most graduate students in the humanities are more likely to shed some light on this question. Please do not bring up the idea of evolution vs. creationism. That is not what the question above is referring to. What I would like to know is: can science, to a degree, be a myth? Besides the Alan Sokel controversy, what other ideas would you suggest to validate the claim?

Answer 1

This question is fun to think about and the humanities profs have been arguing about it for ages. Does science have the right to speak about objective truth? well, in my opinion it all depends on what you are talking about.

Take for example, a overt event, like the WWII...
if we apply the methods of science to the understanding of the war, we will count the dead, say specific events occured, and and perhaps asked why the winners won and what caused the war.

Science, it seems, asks after truth within "specific patterns" like Thomas Kuhn explained in his book "Scientific Revolutions".

But, what would we do if we wanted to "interpret" the same event. this, to me, is a much more difficult question. Some people think the event signifies a kind of nihilism, others say that it is the triumph of the "american way of life".

Trust me, not all science is "myth" in the sense that you want to us the term. BUT, theory in the humanities can hold a different lens up to the event, and read it in a different way....

you should look at Dilthey and the difference between "explanation" and "understanding".

BTW, sokal doesn't validate that claim, he makes a mockery of the humanities because it has no unified idea of what its method is....

If you want a great example of interpretation vs. scientific analysis...look at the movie "Fog of War" with Macnamera....what is Mac saying? Is the old Mac the greatest thinker in politics ever, the best strategist, and the hero of his generation? or, is he a mass muderer? Science cannot evaluate Macnameras actions objectively......anytime propaganda, rhetoric, and ideology are in play, science is lacking...

look to hermeneutics and phenomenology to rectify these questions for yourself

Answer 2

Um, books already _have_ been written on the idea that there is no such thing as "pure" science (especially recent feminist critiques, which have begun to question the effects of the male-dominated medical establishment on women's health in the past centuries).

Science is more than just "contaminated" by human thought; it is totally, inescapably subjective. No human person, by the plain fact that s/he is trapped in his/her body and mind, can possibly be "totally objective." But even more than that, in practice, there is _no such thing_ as "pure objectivity," and to forward the idea that there is to forward a myth. How do we communicate science? Through language. Would science be _worth_ anything if it could not be communicated through language (and thus used or applied by others)? No. Science is trapped in the subjectivity of self and of language.

Science, figured as a looming, incontestable monument, is utterly mythical to the layperson. The physical observations made by a scientist (perhaps the most objective part of the science-making process) must be translated at least three times: from physical world onto paper (data collection); from data to words/interpretation (why the data is important, what it means) and reports for peers to read; and by non-expert writers into articles for the general public. The plain fact that a specialized area of study, "science writing," and specialized college degree programs must be devoted to training journalists how to interpret and translate scientific reports for the lay public suggests that science functions in an utterly removed world. Anything that far removed from everyday life, whose complex laboratory workings a layperson could not even begin to comprehend, is on the order of myth. The collective discipline of 'science' (if not for peer review and regulation) could make up anything it wanted and, reading an article on the scientific matter in a newspaper, no layperson could know the difference. Many people have never seen a research laboratory (and I differentiate this from clinic laboratory, as the two are very different). 'Science' is mythical on many levels.

Answer 3

Science, in pure form, is a totally objective analysis of observation. In that form, there is no element of mythology whatsoever.

However, in regards to science as is:

As all data gathered is filtered through the lens of humans, the lens becomes a potential variant in the data.

As all humans vary, the lens obviously is not perfect. Perfection would require no variation.

Thus all science is to some extent contaminated by a human element.

As evinced by the simple game of telephone, and of course urban legends - humans are driven at a very deep level by some desire or need to mythologize the world around them, perhaps to ease understanding of the otherwise incomprehensible.

As humans invariably add an element of mythology to the things around them, mythology, to some extent, however small, enters into science.

The end result of this tiny little argument, which would make an interesting paper or book now that I think of it... is that one can logically demonstrate (science's basic element) that there is an element of myth in all science.

There are other ways to demonstrate that science is invariably 'contaminated' by a human element. The much publicized fall from grace of S. Korea's 'Chief Scientist' (something like that) for falsifying data is an excellent demonstration of what can happen.

Good Gods... one could definitely go on forever on this topic...

Great question.

-dh

Answer 4

Humanities itself, can even be a Myth-----Except for HISTORY--which tells of events that ACTUALLY Happened

Science is perhaps, like the humanities, simply Man's interpretation of the world that surrounds him.

Do such disciplines need to be referred to a "subjects" at all??

Should we just accept Existence and Reality for what they are Or should we try to make some sense of it??

Answer 5

i don't think of that's obtainable to deem technology a fantasy because of the fact that "technology" defines itself not as that is set of theories or as a concept, yet as the thank you to attempt obtainable concepts. some theories could properly be myths. Karl Popper factors out that for a declare to be scientific, it's going to be falsifiable (i.e. testable or observable). yet technology in itself, as a ability and not a declare can't be a "fantasy" one ought to doubt that the scientific approach is the terrific to apply, yet that doesn't make technology a fantasy. whether, that's beneficial to define your words while asking this questions. What do you mean by using fantasy? i'm a ssuming you mean purely a pretend concept as we use the understanding "fantasy" in on the instant's American English. whether consistent with who you're (and what philosophers you study), fantasy may well be good or undesirable and have distinctive connotations.

Answer 6

Science is a realistic interpretation of the world around us. It is based on fact so I don't think it can be a myth.

Answer 7

Science is CRAP!!! It is just a way to label and humanize God's creations in order to denounce God himself. Any time a human can screw something up, they will!

Answer 8

Science is testable and repeatable. Try it for yourself.