Myth and Science- Dr. Swati Joshi

 Myth and Science-  Dr. Swati Joshi 

In 19th century the theories on myth focuses chiefly on the origin of myth but in the 20th century theories were focused on the composition (subject matter) and (function) utility of myths. But this concept has given birth to mystification between past origin and repeated origin. This concept has given birth to where and when the myth first occurs and how myth takes place? Sometime general questions are asked that myth can be called universal? Or myth is true or not?  Theories are incomplete without myth and myth is not complete without theory. With this statement we can see myth and science. The main challenges to myth have come not from ethical point of view but from science view points. But it should be very clear that science means “modern science” which is not related to mythic or religious science. Myth and science come together with assurance that myth is believable because it is scientific. But this concept works against the term “demythologizing” - a disconnection of myth from science.  To prove this statement we have example of the first plague in that the water of Nile turns into blood (Exodus- 7:14-24) but the editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible has seen this incident from the scientific point of view and declare that – The epidemic of blood was a usual occurrence of Egypt and the red blood color of the water of Nile was at its pinnacle in the season of summer because of the red element of earth or may be because of microscopic life form. This was the scientific approach to myth of Egypt. On the second plague that is related with Frog (Exodus 8:1-15)  the editor has given different scientific reason that the frog was produced in the mud of the Nile  because of the recurring teeming and that was the natural atmosphere for Frog to produced. We have these two incidents of myth where people are saying that because of the curse of God these incidents happened there.  The above incident discussed that one should not considered myth against science but one has to see myth into science. It does not mean that science is noted into myth. Other aspects can be seen from scientific view point which is discussed already. After the discussion next question arises that can myth be as Primitive Science? Myth is a part of religion and religion itself is a science. Myth sometime becomes the casualty of the procedure of secularization that comprises modernity. But E. B. Tylor presented his view that Myth and Science are at chances and he considered myth under religion and religion and science works under philosophy. He separated philosophy into two category ‘primitive’ and ‘modern’.  Primitive philosophy is a religion but science is not primitive. Comparatively Modern Philosophy has two division religion and science. Modern religion has two divisions – metaphysics and ethics but none represents primitive religion.   J.C. Frazer Scottish anthropologist was of the opinion that myth is based on   religion and religion is the complement to natural science. The primitive opinion of Frazer and Tylor is rational. F.M Conford is of the opinion that Myth and religion has given birth to Greek science but he gave importance to content only. 

“Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purpose, meanings, and values.”12 

The French Philosopher and anthropologist Lucien Le’vy- Bruhl is of another opinion on Myth. Lucien considered Myth on a broad way and separated myth and science and discussed that primitive thinking has no rationale attitude. Lucien strongly uttered that Primitive thinking is not related to philosophy and primitives had their own ideas, and concept that turn into myth. Bronislaw Malinowski is against the concept of Lucien. Malinowski discussed that Science is used by primitives to manage the substantial world in that science converted into magic. This magic discontinues and then primitives spin to myth.  Clause Levi- Strauss – the French structural anthropologist talked deeply about primitive, science and myth. According to Strauss,

“Myth is outright scientific because it goes beyond the recording of observed contradictions to the tempering of them. Those contradictions are to be found not in the plot or myth but in structure.”13 

Karl Popper who was philosopher of science has his own views on myth which is against Tylor. 

Popper considered that

“Science emerges out of myth’: most of our scientific theories originate in myth. He discussed that ‘Science originates not out of the acceptance of myth but out of the criticism of it. By criticism …… not rejection but assessment which becomes scientific when it takes the form of subjection to attempt to falsify the truth claims made.”14 

Dr Swati Joshi

Gujarat