mythopoiesis

Post Reply New Topic

Every organization, every area of human endeavor seems to tend to accumulate its myths. These may - as in the case of the Kiowa [?] account of the battle I discussed recently - have a basis in demonstrable fact, or - as apparently in the case of George W. and the cherry tree, be mazde of whole cloth. But we have our heroes and we circulate stories about them and embroider those stories, whole cloth or not, until we may apply to them the adage my father brought out to something I told him, "If it is not true, at least it is a good invention."

Especially in light of some recent discussions I have several times thought of posting a note on the important Galileo myth that is foundational in the scientific community [not, I again stress, the same as the set of scientists] and which is generally received as - you should pardon my French - gospel by most of us. Hey, until quite recently I myself bought into it as probable until further.notice.

But a post was going to mean LOTS of copying stuff from my source - which can't really be scanned with my equipment. I am low on time, a lousy typist - too much. But then I located this:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.com/Galileo_Galilei

So, have a look, enjoy. I have no axe to grind here, nothing to persuade anybody of which - unless it be to persuade some who do not - there are herethose who do - of the principles of science on which most of my life and thought is based:

A. Check everything

B. Consider no source of data infallible.

Well, Philologos, you are wrong: " if you have a bottle of rat poison in one hand and aspirin in the other, you had better believe in objective basic beliefs. Epistemology, by definition has to be more than an expression of skepticism."

So, questioning everything and not holding to the infallibility of a source of data is unlivable.



Agreed, humans are story-building and myth-telling creatures. We create these myths to help understand reality. The issue is that often, we find ourselves enmeshed in a reality, and claims about this that are really a matter of storied-construction rather than truth, and this is just unavoidably human. Many elements of Galileo's story are mythical, because of the legitimate nature of the questions in not giving his work a straight-forward go-ahead.

Note: Philologos, have you read any author such as Thomas Kuhn or even Paul Feyerabend? (Both are good, but Feyerabend is more outrageously skeptical,and Kuhn more broadly influential) The basic point of Kuhn is that discourses develop paradigms that guide their progress, the problem being that the paradigm does not match reality. At some point, what ends up happening is that some voices within the paradigm discover some problem, and a potential solution to it that utterly rocks the implicit foundations/explicit claims, and what ends up happening is that the ideas duel a bit, and then science just shifts to the new paradigm. Kuhn's basic framework of paradigm and paradigm shift though is very much influential, often being cited in other fields, including neuroscientific descriptions of how the brain works(the part of the brain that reasons through claims is different than the one that gives up saying "oh screw this nonsense, I need a different idea!"), as well as theology.

Wo wo wo and Lo lo lo.

"So, questioning everything and not holding to the infallibility of a source of data is unlivable. "

There is - as usual - a lot in your notelet, including much I could and swould gladly explore in depth - except this ain't the time and here ain't the place.

I will say that [how can you not as a language guy in contact with lit types and anthropologists] I have discussed some and heard more on deconstruction and paradigm shift and all, enough to see some kernels of truth as well as some shell fragments of junk. Pretty much true of most big theories at least in the fields closest to mine - they see a truth and run with it, a little too far, while the loyal opposition does the same with HIS perfectly true piece of the elephant.

If it were not the hour it is, I would get pseudoSocratic at you on the logic of "Many elements of Galileo's story are mythical, because of the legitimate nature of the questions in not giving his work a straight-forward go-ahead." - though the particular formulation may mean you are a bit tired too, I maty yet.

But I will for now stick to that quoted above:

"So, questioning everything and not holding to the infallibility of a source of data is unlivable. "

Rat poison and aspirin. Yes, I will question. If I am not PRETTY clear on the history of the two bottles, I miht well do some testing. Not on the dog - I like my dog - but at least sniff [acetylsalicylic acid has a distinctive odor I know well]. And if I am unsure I will live with my fever [or headache, if you take aspirin for that as many do]

I will NOT consider the labelling on the bottles infallible - I may decide to trust it, but a lot of people have been poisoned by stuff in clearly labelled bottles.

I do - we have been over this - put a lot of faith in my senses, though I am pretty sure [hey, I am not infallible, I can only be PRETTY sure of this] my senses are not infallible. To be honest - I got a LOT of evidence my senses ARE fallible.

I do - don't think this has come up so much - put a lot of faith in my more consistent experiences. Though that is not infallible either.

I even trust quite a bit of what careful researchers have figured out about the world even where I have not done the work myself. Though researchers - don't I know! - are not infallible.

I really believe it is dark out. I am pretty sure that means the earth has rotated so as to put me on the side away from the sun. I think it highly probable thde sun will rise tomorrow.

Questioning, checking, recognizing we have NO infallible input - which when you are not being contrary you know as well as I do [though you are not infallible] - that does not mean - and you know THIS - that you reject and deny everything and do NOTHING because ANYHTING - including doing nothing - could be wrong.

We know in part - gee, who said that? And as a great man said - well, not that great, but I think it is somewhere in the Glencannon cycle, "although I am a man of immense knowledge, most of it is wrong".

But there is a redundancy, and we [often cautiously] bet on our cards the best we can figure, and we muddle through.

But - you know - I am not infallible. And my perception of you is neither complete nor [so far as it goes] infallible.

So maybe you really do have access to an infallible source of data.

Of course the only suchI have ever heard tell on would be direct revelation from God.

Have you been holding out on us?