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

Yeah, it's all a big myth.

Gravity? Myth.
The Circulatory System? Myth.
Evolution? Myth.
Thermodynamics? Myth...




Take a guess Einstein.. you THINK it's a myth?



















I'll make it easy, Poindexter: NO, it's NOT a myth... you twit...

Answer 2

I do not think it is possible to deem science a myth since "science" defines itself not as it's set of theories or as a principle, but as a way to test possible principles. Some theories may be myths. Karl Popper points out that for a claim to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. testable or observable). But science in itself, as a method and not a claim cannot be a "myth" One could doubt that the scientific method is the best to use, but that would not make science a myth.

However, you may want to define your terms when asking this questions. What do you mean by myth? I'm a ssuming you mean simply a false idea as we use the word "myth" in today's American English. However depending on who you are (and what philosophers you read), myth can be good or bad and have different connotations.

Answer 3

Well, the main idea behind science is to ascertain some "Universal Principle" the "Laws of Nature" so to speak.

However some philosophers, notably Nancy Cartwright[1], noticed that ALL laws of nature are in reality strictly false.

For example let's take the law of gravity as applied to objects falling to earth. The scientific "law" claims tat object will fall to earth with acceleration equal to 1g(9.80665 m/s^2). However this is strictly false because an object will never be in such a perfect relating with earth, there will always be OTHER objects exerting various forces on the the object, and thus the object will actually NEVER fall down with predicted acceleration of 1 g.

This tend to show that science is a myth of finding universal laws. For more information get his book:[2]

Answer 4

Of course science is a myth, a collection of narratives, a system of models... see Kuhn, see Feyerabend... see Godel, Chaitin...

Science is (significantly) based on logic, logic is essentially a religion... but aside from that, even if there was something like a non mythic science, we, by engaging it, make it a myth....

see my blog...

p.s: anyone who reads Einstein will be aware that he too was aware of the mythic nature of Physics & his own theories......

Hence all the thought experiments... &, btw, I did Engineering Physics ...& then Computing...then History of Science... one thing I now study is Information Theory... thank God (if there is one) that people like the guy two posts down exist, they make my getting funded places much easier...

On Popper: is Popper's theory falsifiable?

On how I got on the 'net: if you mean; am I using technology that does not exist? No, I am not... but I am using technology that one can regard as the product of certain 'foldings' or 'manipulations' of the world around us, the product of 'traditions'...

A good point is that raised about what a 'myth' means, common usage may be one thing... but just like many common usages, it, 'myth', is a word that has meaning derived from context, the one (the context) here drawn from the question posed...

I cited several writers that gave further context...

K (antiparanoid)

Answer 5

Science is not a myth, but to borrow from Plato, science in practice is an imperfect realization of the ideal. Science is subject to dogma, despite it's vigorous attempts at avoidance. In a classic case, Pasteur attempted to ferment sugar using a yeast extract. The experiment failed. Fermentation was thought to be a cellular process. In fact, the reason it failed is that Parisian yeast was deficient in sucrase and when the experiment was repeated in Germany, it worked. In the mean time, the field of enzymology was set back by decades.

Answer 6

Yes in some cases dolby 5.1 vs 6.1 does that extra speaker really make a difference medicine cures one thing and causes a side effect .Alot of scientists were philosophers

Answer 7

what i think you want is psuedo-science as speculative as science can be it is more real than a great deal of philosphical thought ask yourself which one is considered a pure science & what that means in comparison to the arts .also next time you go on net what made that possible ? a clue it wasn't myth....
peaceout

Answer 8

Um, books already _have_ been written on the concept that there is not any such element as "organic" technology (somewhat modern-day feminist evaluations, that have started to question the outcomes of the male-ruled scientific enterprise on women folk's well-being interior the previous centuries). technology is greater suitable than purely "contaminated" by using human theory; that's thoroughly, inescapably subjective. No human guy or woman, by using the elementary actuality that s/he's trapped in his/her physique and concepts, can in all likelihood be "completely purpose." yet even greater suitable than that, in prepare, there is _no such thing_ as "organic objectivity," and to forward the concept that there is to forward a fantasy. How will we communicate technology? by using language. might technology be _worth_ something if it ought to not be communicated by using language (and hence used or utilized by using others)? No. technology is trapped interior the subjectivity of self and of language. technology, figured as a looming, incontestable monument, is fully mythical to the layperson. The actual observations made by using a scientist (possibly the main purpose area of the technology-making technique) could be translated a minimum of thrice: from actual international onto paper (information series); from information to words/interpretation (why the help is important, what it ability) and comments for friends to study; and by using non-professional writers into articles for the final public. the elementary actuality that an extremely professional portion of learn, "technology writing," and actually professional college degree classes could be dedicated to guidance newshounds the thank you to interpret and translate scientific comments for the lay public ability that technology purposes in an fully bumped off international. something that far removed from each and daily existence, whose complicated laboratory workings a layperson ought to not even start to appreciate, is on the order of fantasy. The collective discipline of 'technology' (if not for peer evaluation and regulation) could make up something it needed and, examining a piece of writing on the scientific rely in a newspaper, no layperson ought to appreciate the version. many human beings have on no account considered a study laboratory (and that i differentiate this from medical institution laboratory, as the two are very distinctive). 'technology' is mythical on many stages.