For some earlier talk, see
Scientific Mythology/Talk.
While I understand your re-titling, I think it's a cop out. "Mythology" is a perfectly
meaningful word, and while it is misused and ruffles some feathers, I think it's better
to clarify its real meaning than to simply avoid it.
- You're assuming, Lee, that once we've covered all the stories of science, we'll have a large, important topic in addition, called the mythology of science. I really doubt that.
And besides, if we are going to cover mythology at all, how do we justify using the
word for Greek, Roman, Sumerian, and other cultural and religious traditions and not
for Christian, Hindu. scientific, or other cultures? The only difference, it seems to
me, is there aren't any Sumerians around to complain. That's hardly a difference worth
changing titles for. --LDC
- As I see it, it's easy to justify that. To wit, there aren't (to my knowledge, anyway) Greek, Roman, and Sumerian religionists about to complain that their stories are actually true, and that we should not be prejudicing Wikipedia's readers against them. There are many Christians, Muslims, and Jews about who will rightly complain that saying that their stories, which they believe are true, are part of a "mythology" is inherently biased. If everyone stops believing those stories, then in the context of Wikipedia with its neutral point of view policy, we can safely label them "mythology." --LMS
Readded the influence on story telling to science. The problem was brought up by James Burke.
Some of the examples of how story telling affects scientific education are my own, but
1) I think I am qualified to make those statements based on personal experience and 2)
they aren't particularly controversial statements among science teachers. -- Chenyu
James Burke is not, to my knowledge, a well-respected authority on the history of science: he is a popularizer, isn't he? --LMS
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)