Then your definition of "scientific" is something that includes knowledge that exists prior to the invention of science, doesn't it?
-
-
Replying to @ComplaintStick
Is there a prior to the invention of science? Humans have been testing things and using the evidence provided for as long as we existed. 'Scire' - to know as a fact. However, we can also apply science to very old data. Not sure what the relevance of this tweet is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ComplaintStick
It doesn't matter much whether there was a word for making a decision based on evidence - I won't eat that because it makes people sick - or based on myth - I won't eat that because God says it is unclean, truth claims are involved. The former cld be true. The latter unlikely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
OK so there's a myth one of whose lessons is: don't eat this thing because you will become sick. Is that myth telling you something meaningful or something true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
We could not know if it was true without testing it. For the Hare Krishnas it is onions and garlic. For the ancient Hebrews, it was pork & shellfish. The former seems groundless. The latter can now be understood in relation to food poisoning & dealt with via refrigeration.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ComplaintStick
Some things people place meaning on are not true, yes. Thunder is not actually an angry god swinging a hammer about. The meaning given to it is false. People can still take pleasure in imagining it and perhaps it could even be useful but it is not true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ComplaintStick
People can place meaning on absolutely anything. This can be interesting and I study narratives because it is interesting. It also matters what is true and distinguishing what people find meaningful regardless of truth from what has been discovered to be true has advanced society
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm not arguing against truth. I'm saying that if tribe members argue about whether a plant makes you sick, and they argue in terms of that myth, they aren't arguing about whether the myth is meaningful but about whether it is true: that the right way to live is not to eat it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
OK? So what? Where is this going? If you mean that sometimes people can find information and data in myths, I agree and have never claimed otherwise. This is not the point of the disagreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe a myth mentions that a certain war happened in a certain place and archaeologists use this as a starting point for seeking evidence for it. This is not what is being criticised as 'the affective reality of the mythic world,' is it?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.