Myth & Science

     In dealing with Myth and Science one runs into complications. First, I would like to define the term Myth, Myths could be defined as traditional stories which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, it is derived from the Greek word Mythos, which simply means "Story". Myths are commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception as some would say; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
    It is not as not as easy as it seems to determine what is to count as science, then the question is:
            What is SCIENCE?
Science could be defined as a systematic enterprise that creates, build and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. Or as a particular discipline or branch of learning especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. Secondly the scientific method, if it is the same for all the branches of science must be so elaborated as to accommodate problems diverse as the study and classification of the stars, astronomy, and the investigation and curing of diseases, medicine.
      It is important to point out that the aim of scientific research is not only to discover and describe events and phenomenon in the world but also, and more fundamentally, to explain why these events and phenomenon occur as they do. Why do object move? Why do planets move in elliptical orbits? Why are protons stable and neutrons unstable? Thus the scientist is primarily and predominantly concerned with explanation, for no one believes he has knowledge of something until he has understood the reason why it is the why it is. It's this desire to know the why of things that moves the scientist to go from the base of observable facts to establish laws and from a cluster of laws to formulate theories which he will seek to confirm through further observation.
      In seeking for the why of things, the scientist is certainly looking for the causes of events and phenomenon, but the criterion of fidelity to empirical evidence constrains him to exclude unknown or immaterial forces from his enquiry. Secondly, the scientist does not usually seek the first cause or origin of things; he is basically concerned with explaining why events in the world happen the way they do. Here lie the main difference between Myth and Science. The myth-maker observes the event and phenomenon in the world. He is convinced of their  inner reality and significance, but is, However, concerned with describing to the entire people how the event first took place and spread all over the world or how the phenomenon first came into being. Thus arises the burden of the Myth-maker, for example, to describe how the world, tools of work, suffering and death first came to being, the myth-maker does not hesitate to incorporate superhuman or immaterial beings such as gods and the Supreme Being.
         Hence, from the consideration of their aims and method of approach, Myth and Science follow contrary procedures. Perhaps the concern they might share in common is pointing the way to the happiness of the individual and the welfare of the community. Thus a myth and a scientific theory provide different perspective on events and phenomenon in the world. Myth is claimed by the community at large; a scientific theory, whose author could be determined, belongs to a specialized group in the community, the scientific community, just as a novel, or a piece of poetry, although it is the work of an individual member of the community, ultimately belongs to the community.
Please leave a comment, share and follow up on Google plus+

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to be a part of the team in writing articles on the blog, follow me up on Google plus+ and send me a message