I'm not going to say that I agree with Dreamhunter's historical views or standpoints, but I do believe, and agree, that in history research, in archeology and anthropology and historical based sociology, myths and folklore are very important to understanding and studying the cultures, societies, and lives of ancient peoples. Entire schools of study are devoted to it, and it is a large part of how we define what the ancient people did and why they did it. Therefore I have to disagree with your statement there as you make it appear as though mythology and folklore are not part of scientific research, but they are, not in the context of forming modern systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior but in the context of forming an understanding of ancient systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior.
Dustie: You left out the phrase in parentheses: unless supported by some independently existing evidence. Yes, folklore, mythology, etc., have their value in studying cultures (including our own); I said that earlier. And yes, they can provide clues even about historical facts at times. But they are not a good basis for putting forth any speculation scientifically unless they are also supported by independent evidence. The best they can be, in such circumstances, it put forth as a
very tentative hypothesis with the full realization that they are immediately subject to dismissal should contrary evidence arise.
Now, supporting evidence can be current cultural trends which echo aspects of the "history" included in the myth, or artifacts, or analagous phenomena in current cultures which can be studied as living systems, or any number of other things. But they cannot work as a sound basis for a hypothesis when taken
in vacuo. They can intrigue, they can excite speculation, they can suggest possibilities... but from that point on, genuine evidence must emerge, or all they can ever remain is hypotheses. And, of course, the less evidence such a hypothesis has, and the more it conflicts with the evidence which has been gathered, the more likely it is to be pure moonshine.
When I was speaking of mathematics being a rigid subject: examples are 2 + 3 = 5; the cubic root of 8 is 2; etc. These things are absolutely immutable, they are not going to change, even for the next 10,000 millennia, are they? Now, that was what I meant by rigidity.
Well, no, they're not. Theoretically at least, they too are subject to certain conditions. Mathematics is a construct; it has no genuine basis in the real world beyond simple arithmetic -- and even that is subject to alterations in the known physical laws. They are unlikely to change, but it is not impossible that they may change. Nothing in science is absolute, because, as I said before, it must be falsifiable. Mathematics is a system of signifiers, nothing more. The facts supporting those things signified change, the value of the signifiers change. It's as simple as that.
As for the rest: No, they won't be insulted. Nor will they be particularly interested in anything I have to say, either. But because they don't take offense does not mean such comments are not insults issued. They very much are, because, in putting such baseless speculation on a par with the results of decades, even centuries, of research, is tantamount to saying that a child's views of geopolitics is as valid as a real-world basis for understanding the subject as the views issued by someone who has spent their entire life studying and/or practicing the subject. It is promoting ignorance over genuine knowledge and understanding. And before you go saying that it isn't, all of your phraseology says that it is. The entire "higher truth" nonsense, to take only one example, is a glaring instance of this. It is obfuscation masquerading as openmindedness. But the thing is, a truly open mind is open to evidence, open to those things which have a genuine basis in reality; it does not dismiss those (which is what you have consistently done throughout the thread by the way you address them) in favor of a web of empty words and, again, baseless speculation -- especially speculation which flies in the face of what
has genuinely been ascertained.
Yes, you can talk about the subject all you want. No one is saying otherwise. But don't pretend to actually be interested in finding the truth when you dismiss every scrap of genuine evidence in favor of such things. That, too, is an insult to those you are conversing with.
And a word about truth; I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Dustie; truth -- genuine truth, that is, not the misty misuse of the word which has become so common these days -- is not relative.
Interpretation of the facts may well be;
truth is not.
truth -- 1. The state or character of being true in relation to being, knowledge, or speech. 2. Conformity to fact or reality. 3. Conforming to rule, standard, pattern, or ideal. 4. Steadfastness; sincerity. 5. That which is true; a statement or belief that corresponds to the reality. 6. Fact; reality. 7. A disposition to tell only what is true; veracity. 8. Fidelity; constancy.
Now, save for those entries dealing with human behavior (3, 4, 7, 8), the main point of each definition of the word is conformity to reality as an objectively existing entity. There is no such thing as a "higher truth" than truth. There is such a thing as a construct which appeals more to the emotions or imagination, or which is more fulfilling to them than the bald reality may be, but this is a far cry from
truth. There is such a thing as being honestly mistaken in your statements based on your knowledge of the existing facts. This is truth only insofar as it is
honesty; it is not truth in the sense meant so often above: the actual state of affairs, the reality
itself.
