Moon made of cheese...green cheese?

Myth, fable, folklore, and linguistics are involved.

There exists a family of stories in comparative mythology in diverse countries that concern a simpleton who sees a reflection of the Moon and mistakes it for a round cheese:

... the Servian tale where the fox leads the wolf to believe the moon reflection in the water is a cheese and the wolf bursts in the attempt to drink up the water to get at the cheese; the Zulu tale of the hyena that drops the bone to go after the moon reflection in the water; the Gascon tale of the peasant watering his ass on a moonlight night. A cloud obscures the moon, and the peasant, thinking the ass has drunk the moon, kills the beast to recover the moon; the Turkish tale of the Khoja Nasru-'d-Din who thinks the moon has fallen into the well and gets a rope and chain with which to pull it out. In his efforts the rope breaks, and he falls back, but seeing the moon in the sky, praises Allah that the moon is safe; the Scotch tale of the wolf fishing with his tail for the moon reflection;....

Read more...

The Moon is made of green cheese [Wikipedia]

Little Buck Cheeser

 

1937

Ancient astronaut poll

Did ancient astronauts visit Earth?

Yes: 4 [50%]

No: 3 [37%]

Maybe: 1 [12%]

UFOs, diversity of the world's mythology, literary figures [Frankensteins, Draculas], bad science, science fiction, God--all represent something that provides a belief in the unknown, comfort, and in some cases salvation. It can also demean man's accomplishments and potential. Man is quite intelligent and hasn't even reached the plateau of knowledge and skills and conceptual formulations of ones own existence and position in the universe.

The visitations by ancient astronauts is a desire to lessen the feeling of loneliness...of some hope in that they may have left some valuable secrets behind, or will return and save us from ourselves and a dying planet...cure diseases, eliminate poverty, see the face of God. Is it really unconceivable that the pyramids were built by mankind's intellect and ingenuity...did aliens really assist? I don't think so. Face it, there isn't one item of physical evidence that would substantiate alien visitors. Just because an event or object cannot be explained doesn't mean that its antecedent is alien. It is a matter of faith and a wish that things would be different. Like Antoine De Saint-Exupery said..."The meaning of things lies not in the things themselves...but in our attitude towards them".


Birth of a very popular mythology

British UFO data released

Conspiracies...diehard myth makers

Frankenstein and bioethics is on campus at WSU

G. K. Chesterton--myths/logic

King Solomon's Mines...a myth challenged

March...astronomical lion and lamb

Mars...Percival Lowell's romance with the red planet

Myths/science; science/myths--needed...compatible?

Oh Hell...cannot forget this guy and location

Origin of science

Persephone [Περσεφονηία]...change of seasons

Pleiades and mythology

Pseudoscience...be careful

"Science, Knowledge, Wisdom, Life"

Science, Philosophy, Religion...the best?

Shroud of Turin to be questioned once again

Simple science and priestly control

Stanhengues...early astronomy?...and new digs

UFOs and foreign invasions [Earthly kind]

For those that selected "Yes", I invite you to share your reasoning and perspective.

King Solomon's Mines...a myth challenged

A legendary tale well represented by literature and the cinema and exemplifies what a myth may be...an exaggeration of an actual event or situation. We have been told of the enormous wealth of King Solomon's mines: Diamonds, gold, ivory, silver. The truth of the matter may well be something just as valuable--copper and that is what the following suggests. Stories get embellished to enhance a tale.

"King Solomon's (copper) mines? Deep dig finds confluence of science and the Bible"

October 27th, 2008

PhysOrg.com

Led by Thomas Levy of UC San Diego and Mohammad Najjar of Jordan's Friends of Archaeology, an international team of archaeologists has excavated an ancient copper-production center at Khirbat en-Nahas down to virgin soil, through more than 20 feet of industrial smelting debris, or slag. The 2006 dig has brought up new artifacts and with them a new suite of radiocarbon dates placing the bulk of industrial-scale production at Khirbat en-Nahas in the 10th century BCE – in line with biblical narrative on the legendary rule of David and Solomon. The new data pushes back the archaeological chronology some three centuries earlier than the current scholarly consensus.

The research also documents a spike in metallurgic activity at the site during the 9th century BCE, which may also support the history of the Edomites as related by the Bible.

Khirbat en-Nahas, which means "ruins of copper" in Arabic, is in the lowlands of a desolate, arid region south of the Dead Sea in what was once Edom and is today Jordan's Faynan district. The Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) identifies the area with the Kingdom of Edom, foe of ancient Israel.

For years, scholars have argued whether the Edomites were sufficiently organized by the 10th to 9th centuries BCE to seriously threaten the neighboring Israelites as a true "kingdom." Between the World Wars, during the "Golden Age" of biblical archaeology, scholars explored, as Levy describes it, with a trowel in one hand and Bible in the other, seeking to fit their Holy Land findings into the sacred story. Based on his 1930s surveys, American archaeologist Nelson Glueck even asserted that he had found King Solomon's mines in Faynan/Edom. By the 1980s, however, Glueck's claim had been largely dismissed. A consensus had emerged that the Bible was heavily edited in the 5th century BCE, long after the supposed events, while British excavations of the Edomite highlands in the 1970s-80s suggested the Iron Age had not even come to Edom until the 7th century BCE.

"Now," said Levy, director of the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UCSD and associate director of the new Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3), "with data from the first large-scale stratified and systematic excavation of a site in the southern Levant to focus specifically on the role of metallurgy in Edom, we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period."

Khirbat en-Nahas, comprising some 100 ancient buildings including a fortress, is situated in the midst of a large area covered by black slag – more than 24 acres that you can clearly see on Google Earth's satellite imagery. Mining trails and mines abound. The size argues for industrial-scale production at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy explained. And the depth of the waste at the site, more than 20 feet, he said, provides a "measuring stick" to monitor social and technological change during the Iron Age, which spans around 1200 to 500 BCE, a key period in the histories of ancient Israel and Edom.

The archaeological team, Levy said, used high-precision radiocarbon dating on date seeds, sticks of tamarisk and other woods used for charcoal in smelting (along with Bayesian analysis) to obtain the 10th- and 9th-century BCE dates. The analyses were carried out by Thomas Higham of the University of Oxford.

Additional evidence comes from ancient Egyptian artifacts found at the site. The artifacts, a scarab and an amulet, were in a layer of the excavation associated with a serious disruption in production at the end of the 10th century BCE – possibly tying Khirbat en-Nahas to the well-documented military campaign of Pharaoh Sheshonq I (aka "Shishak" in the Bible) who, following Solomon's death, sought to crush economic activity in the area.

For a comprehensive picture, the researchers marshaled the "the newest and most accurate digital archaeology tools," Levy said: electronic surveying linked to GIS that all but eliminates human error, as well as digital reconstruction of the site in the "StarCAVE," a 3-D virtual environment at UC San Diego's California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology.

The present findings, Levy noted, support early results he and his colleagues obtained from digs at Khirbat en-Nahas in 2002 and 2004.

"We can't believe everything ancient writings tell us," Levy said. "But this research represents a confluence between the archaeological and scientific data and the Bible."

"Our work also demonstrates methods that are objective and enable researchers to evaluate the data in a dispassionate way. This is especially important for 'historical archaeologies' around the world where sacred texts – whether the Mahabharata in India or the Sagas of Iceland – and the archaeological record are arenas for fierce ideological and cultural debates."

Future research at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy said, will focus on who actually controlled the copper industry there – Kings David and Solomon or perhaps regional Edomite leaders (who had not been written about in the biblical texts) – and also on the environmental impacts of all this ancient smelting.

Meanwhile, Levy is working with the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature in Jordan and other organizations to have Khirbat en-Nahas and the more than 450-square mile ancient mining and metallurgy district declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, to protect it from possible mining in the future and preserve "its spectacular desert landscape and rare, ancient character."

University of California - San Diego


King Solomon's Mines [book]

King Solomon's Mines [audio book]

G. K. Chesterton--myths/logic

Gilbert Keith Chesterton
May 29th, 1874 to June 14th, 1936

And G. K. Chesterton wrote:

"The Logic of Elfland"

by

G. K. Chesterton

1908

Orthodoxy

My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery. I generally learnt it from a nurse; that is, from the solemn and star-appointed priestess at once of democracy and tradition. The things that I believed most then, the things that I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales. They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not fantasies: compared with them other things are fantastic. Compared with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong. Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense. It is not earth that judges heaven, but heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth. I knew the magic beanstalk before I had tasted beans; I was sure of the Man in the Moon before I was certain of the moon. This was at one with all popular tradition. Modern minor poets are naturalists, and talk about the bush or the brook; but the singers of the old epics and fables were supernaturalists, and talked about the gods of brook and bush. That is what the moderns mean when they say that the ancients did not "appreciate Nature", because they said that Nature was divine. Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies that dance on the grass; and the old Greeks could not see the trees for the dryads.

But I deal here with what ethic and philosophy come from being fed on fairy tales. If I were describing them in detail I could note many noble and healthy principles that arise from them. There is the chivalrous lesson of "Jack the Giant Killer"; that giants should be killed because they are gigantic. It is a manly mutiny against pride as such. for the rebel is older than all the kingdoms, and the Jacobin has more tradition than the Jacobite. There is the lesson of "Cinderella", which is the same as that of the Magnificat- exaltavit humiles . There is the great lesson of "Beauty and the Beast"; that a thing must be loved before it is lovable. There is the terrible allegory of the "Sleeping Beauty", which tells how the human creature was blessed with all birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be softened to a sleep. But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes of elfland, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could speak, and shall retain when I cannot write. I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.

It might be stated this way. There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one word following another), which are, in the true sense of the word reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. For example, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters. there is no getting out of it. Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about the fact as he pleases: it really must be. If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack. Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne: and we in fairy land submit. If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved: that is true rationalism, and faryland is full of it. But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened-dawn and death and so on -as if they were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as necessary as the fact that two and one trees make three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail. These men in spectacles spoke much of a man named Newton, who was hit by an apple, and who discovered a law. But they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling. If the apple hit Newton's nose, Newton's nose hit the apple. That is a true necessity: because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other. But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it falling ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike. We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are not laws, but only weird repetitions. We believe in bodily miracles, but not in mental impossibilities. We believe that a Bean-stalk climbed up to heaven; buth that does not at all confuse our convictions on the philosophical question of how many beans make five.

Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales. The man of science says, "Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall"; but he says it calmly, as if one idea really led up to the other. The witch in the fairy tale says, "Blow the horn, and the ogre's castle will fall"; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause. Doubless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower. But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting these facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer.

In fairyland we avoid the word "law"; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it. Thus they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronounced the alphabet, Grimm's Law. But Grimm's Law is far less intellectual than Grimm's Fairy Tales. The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales; while the law is not a law. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enchantment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As ideas , the egg and the chicken are further off each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the "Laws of Nature". When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is magic . It is not a "law", for we do not understand the general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for the unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, "law", "necessity", order", tendency", and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, "charm", spell", enchantment". They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.

I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about "a law" that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist. He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations. He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together. A sentimentalist might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminds him of his boyhood. So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples. But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country.

This elementary wonder, however, is not a mere fancy derived from the fairy tales; on the contrary, all the fire of the fairy tales is derived from this. Just as we all like love tales because there is an instinct of sex, we all like astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment. This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door. Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales - because they find them romantic. In fact, a baby is about the only person, I should think, to whom a modern realistic novel could read without boring him. This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest an amazement. These tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water. I have said that this is wholly reasonable and even agnostic. And indeed, on this point I am all for the higher agnosticism; its better name is Ignorance. We have all read in scientific books, and, indeed, in all romances, the story of the man who has forgotten his name. This man walks about the streets and can see and appreciate everything; only he cannot remember who he is. Well, every man is that man in the story. Every man has forgotten who he is. One may understand the cosmos, but never the ego; the self is more distant than any star. Thou shalt love the Lord the God; but thou shalt not know thyself. We are all under the same mental calamity; we have all forgotten our names. We have all forgotten what we really are. All that we call common sense and rationality and practicality and positivism only means that for certain dead levels of our life we forgot that we have forgotten. All that we call spirit and art and ecstasy only means that for one awful instant we remember that we forgot.

Origin of science

Ah, this could be a trick question...probably more philosophical than attachment of a specific movement or era.

The phenomena of the universe prior to the pre-Socratic philosophy [categorically the Greek Natural Philosophy Movement] was most likely observed and utilized [not necessarily understood as we would understand today] by shamans, medicine men, and cult/religion priests. Probably, what understanding they had [the ability to recognize repetitive events of astronomy, physical phenomena, chemical reactions, etc.] were used to mystify and subjugate the members of a tribe or civilization for personal gains--"magic" kept the incumbent in power until he was usurped by a clever/more powerful rival/priestly group, or died. It wasn't until the 6th century B.C., did the process of separating myth/magic from a logical view of the world begin in earnest. The likes of the Atomists, Pythagoreans, Heraclities, etc. where a more logical approach which began to develop and become more and more sophisticated in time.

I seriously doubt that very early man gave much abstract thought to the "discovery" of fire...more of a practical outlook: Warmth, light, cooking, tool making, etc. I don't think a single event has ever been considered, but certainly astronomical events would be high on the list.

What particular events would contribute to a crude science formation even if it were not stated in any conceptual terms of the time. I would venture to say that the obvious one would be astronomical events. Something as the cyclical regularity of the sun and moon and the ability to make predictions regarding same as well as the changes in weather, the rise and fall of rivers, and changes in tree foliage. These features would enable early man to travel, roughly guess the seasons, predict pregnancies [of man and animal], and grow crops. And particularly, the latter would give man a fixed section of territory to grow crops and domesticate animals thereby giving more time for contemplation and a better understand of man's environment--thus very early science. Wonder how long that process took. The point is that early science [devoid of the rigors of the scientific method] is easily traceable to the most obvious--astronomy.

Consider:

Hill of Mezamor [Armenia]
Mayan observatory El Caracol [Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico]
Monuments of Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth, Loughcrew and Fourknocks [Ireland]
Pyramids [Egypt]
Snake El Castillo [Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico]
Stanhengues [Salisbury Plain Wiltshire, England]
Temples at Tikal [Guatemala]

The question of the topic may never arrive at a definitive answer--only close approximations and a mutual agreement that early "science" was intricately interwoven in early man's association with astronomy and that it was more of a practical enterprise than one of abstraction such as moon phases, solar events, tides, seasons and rainfall, reproduction cycles, etc. Ancient Greek schools of thought began to focus on the abstracts of science. Methodologies and cohesive scientific statements were rare until the times of Galileo and the scientific revolution starting in earnest in the 18th century. Much of the "theories" were part of mythology and religion/theology. [A dramatic example involves Galileo's heretical and radical astronomy pitted against a fearful established religion facing flack from the Reformation and a shaking of the established Ptolemaic system.]

It's difficult to formulate a definition of "science" and apply to historical periods. Current definitions include adherence to the "scientific method". This is fundamental in the gathering of data, analysis, formulation of hypotheses, testing the hypotheses over and over [predictability], and finally, the formulation of theories. "Science" can even be viewed as the consistent perpetual negation of theories: A dialectic of postulated theories, attempts to negate the theories, and the formulation/modification of new theories. Thus, "science" is progressive and concerned with removing error and getting closer to "truth". [Again: The Galileo incident.] The latter posture was formulated and promoted by Karl Popper and the "critical realist" movement. Falsification of theories can have many ramifications in the realm of social sciences. Mandatory criteria of predictability of certain postulates [such as Freudian psychology] challenge the theories of unpredictability. But, that is a whole issue by itself as well as challenges to the "scientific method".

Could a popular and controversial hypothesis called "linguistic determinism" be an antecedent to advanced cognition and formulation of the concepts of science? Does a sparse language retard or prohibit elements of science--say, a simple procedure of "counting"? I don't think that the ability to perform such a function would inhibit the visual representation of astronomical phenomena on cave walls, rock facades, logs, or animal skins made by primitive man such as the Neanderthals. Astronomical cycles and events, fecundity and reproduction cycles were often recorded by such means. Of course this is crude/unsophisticated science and one must ultimately find a common ground for discussion and establish a definition of "science". See the material gathered on a Brazilian tribe called the Pirahã. This tribe has no number beyond "2"--described only as "many".

Much has been related here as to the origins of science and sometimes it comes down to a matter of definition. I think it can generally be agreed that science has strong roots with ancient man observing and marking specific astronomical events for a number of relevant purposes involving flooding, seasons, planting of crops, migration of animals, or female fecundity. And, one can even add the growing strength of priestly power and subjugation of the populace--a little "razzle dazzle" goes a long way if one can predict, for example, an eclipse. Many would like to subscribe the origin of science to Isaac Newton, but I think one can go further back than that to Francis Bacon [1561-1626] and even Roger Bacon [early 13th Century monk].

The bottom [philosophical] line:

This topic is still a knotty issue for it does spin on definition. It would probably be agreed that in very general terms science began with man's look at the stars--astronomy. Astronomy was tied directly with human reproduction, animal behavior, seasons, agriculture--successful elements for the proliferation of the human species. But it can be said that a true formation of science began with the Greeks and Romans. What was the big difference? Possibly just two words: "Skepticism" and "doubt". When these disciplines are used then the beginnings of a sound epistemology blossoms. The beginning of a scientific methodology. Reasoning goes beyond mere observations and simple correlations. Man begins to converse instead of "grunt".


A few references:


"Ancient Roots Of Modern Science"

“Beginnings of Science”

“The Beginnings of Modern Science and Philosophy”

“The Birth of Modern Science: Galileo and Descartes”

"Language may shape human thought"

Friar Bacon His Discovery of the Miracles of Art, Nature, and Magick by, Roger Bacon

"FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)"

"Valerius Terminus: On the Interpretation of Nature" by, Francis Bacon

"Nabta Playa"

"Late Neolithic megalithic structures at Nabta Playa (Sahara), southwestern Egypt"

"Nabta Playa: African Archaeology"

Myths/science; science/myths--needed...compatible?

"The meaning of things lies not in the things themselves...
but in our attitude towards them"

Antoine De Saint-Exupery

Words fly like buckshot from an old blunderbuss when the subject of the unexplained and the need for the promotion/belief of the unexplained come to the surface. Reasons can be supplied for the need of theological beliefs, but what about the other popular topics such as extra terrestrial beings, yetti/big foot, the Bermuda triangle, Planet X, or mind over matter control to name just a few. Other than the possibility of coincidence of events, why, despite the lack of any scientific evidence and logical approach, do these "mysterious" events survive in popularity. Has theology failed? Does mankind feed off of these wild stories for existence? Why is clear, definitive evidence in most cases lacking, misinterpreted, or totally ignored? Are these stories vehicles of promotion for the charlatans of the world?

This is a complex topic for it covers the span of mankind's development of theology/philosophy [a guide on how to conduct one's life as an individual and as a group], politics [a set of rules to govern a nation and a means to employ such regulations], social behavior, and science to select a few.

Mythology today is just as important as it was over 4,000 years ago. But today, in a largely scientific community, the rigors of scientific methodology often destroy myths. In a way, that is good for it exhibits a means of separating the unessential from the essential--those who want to exploit fear and ignorance for monetary gain. Purchase the latest video tape, book, or watch it on some pseudo science television program that is geared for viewers's statistical revenues rather than authenticity. There are, however, some truly good science programs on the air waves.

Some myths, though unproved, do have a positive value such as those associated with a number of religious movements. Though not authenticated, they nevertheless provide sustenance for many individuals and it thus becomes a matter of faith--that's fine as long as it is understood in its proper perspective. But the event of aliens and others may well represent something deeper--an erosion of some of the basics of a number of religions and in the vacuum of doubt and uncertainty these types of myths appear.

Before the Internet stories were of an oral nature. And much further back that was the only means of passing on a nation's tradition, laws, etc.--at least until writing emerged. It just seems to me that the majority of these bizarre and fantastic claims are driven with making money and perhaps spreading fear and well as priestly control. Ignorance can breed fear.

And then there are those individuals that just have to believe in something--so why not aliens. They in principle are more intelligent, and in some cases, offer a non-understandable hope either as a category of one or a group i.e., mankind.

Current mythology [ideology in some cases] is perpetuated by some religious institutions basically in their endeavor to maintain their status quo. Those are standard myths and are sometimes replaced and supplemented by new urban myths expressing probably some psychological aspect of the human psyche. Examples again: Alien visitation [past/present], alien interaction with some humans, crop circles, Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, shroud of Turin, Planet-x, a staged moon landing, Yeti, and on and on. Some myths are highly localized and take on the persona of regionalism. Nevertheless, despite the validity of these phenomena, they may represent a psychological need for some individuals. For a broader input into the realms of mythology check out the following books by the late authority on mythology, Joseph Campbell: The Masks Of God, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, Transformations Of Myth Through Time, The Mythic Image, Primitive Mythology, Historical Atlas Of World Mythology, and The Power Of Myth.


And read Michael Zimmerman's "We Need New Myths An incomplete, distorted mythology fuels the arms race, and a more complete one is modeled in George Lucas' "Star Wars" trilogy"

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE:

UFO SIGHTED

On 13th August, 1960, near midnight, while driving east of Corning, California, state police officers Charles Carson and Stanley Scott saw a lighted object drop out of the sky. Fearing the imminent crash, they broke suddenly and jumped out of their car. The object continued to fall until it reached about 100ft, at which point it suddenly reversed direction and climbed 400ft where it suddenly stopped and began to hover. Carson wrote in his official report. "At this time, it was clearly visible to both of us. It was surrounded by a glow making the round or oblong object visible. At each end, or each side of the object, there were definite red lights. At times about five white lights were visible between the red lights. As we watched, the object moved again and performed aerial feats that were actually unbelievable". The two officers radioed the Tehama County Sheriff's Office and asked it to contact the nearest Air Force Base, which was Red Bluff. Radar there confirmed the object's presence. The UFO remained in view for more than two hours. During that time two deputy sheriffs and the county jailer saw it from their respective locations. According to Carson. "On two occasions the object came directly towards the patrol vehicle; each time it approached, the object turned, swept the area with a huge red light. Officer Scott turned the red light on the patrol vehicle towards the object, and it immediately went away from us. We observed the object use the red beam approximately six or seven times, sweeping the sky and ground areas. The object began moving slowly in an easterly direction and we followed. We proceeded to the Vina Plains Fire Station where it was approached by a similar object from the south. It moved near the first object and both stopped, remaining in that position for some time, occasionally emitting the red beam. Finally, both objects disappeared below the eastern horizon."

Carson noted, "Each time the object neared us we experienced radio interference".----UFO Sightings

Okay, let's take a look at this classic, and unexplained, 1960 sighting. Bear in mind the phenomena will still be unresolved, but at least a number of approaches will be entertained and a possible alternate more plausible explanation provided--the main one being a psychological need for such reports of UFO's [perpetuation of mythology]. Not enclosed in the text above [and found elsewhere] is the printed material that there was alleged corroborating testimony from two deputies, a jailer, and some [?] inmates: "On their return to the Sheriff’s office they found that the object and been seen by two deputies and by the prison jailer, who had taken his prisoners on to the roof to observe it."

There is a lot happening here some involving the methodology of logical analysis [the use of simple informal fallacies], alternate physical explanations, psychological reasoning.

Informal Fallacies:

1.) The appeal to "authority". Here, it is the appeal to law officers. The whole idea using this fallacy is that it almost shot itself in the foot by citing the prisoners as eye witness testimonies. However, many sightings are appealed to via means of scientists [?], pilots, law enforcement--even President Jimmy Carter.

2.) Close to the above [regarding the prisoners] is "selective observational data". In many cases, pertinent data is omitted.

3.) And then there is the appeal to "ignorance" whereby the promoter of this event wishes the event to be true and accepted even though there is truly a lack of evidence to make such a justification.

Lack of Physical Evidence:

This is a segue from #3.) in that there is not one shred of physical evidence for corroboration. This appears to be one of the biggest challenges for the myth makers being scrutinized by analysis in all UFO stories.

Psychological Reasoning:

There is a lot to this approach and can be applied individually or as a culture. Here is some interesting information: The classic years of UFO citing [from about 1950 to 1967] came in time packets: 1950, 1954, 1957, 1959, 1967. Any particular reason[s]? Social reasons? Perhaps, interest in the original story waned and needed revival every two or three years. The other interesting item is that the reported dimensions of these crafts are generally larger from North American sightings as compared to European sightings. Freud? However, one must also understand a couple of things about society at that time: The "Cold War" was a huge issue [ultimate annihilation], space exploration grabbed the public attention, and religion began to falter in spiritual matters of mankind’s relationship [through science] to the universe. One of several interesting psychological offerings came from Carl Jung who, in simple terms, believed that all civilizations share a selective consciousness of relevant relationships which were represented by symbolism such as earth and water or circle and triangle. The circle [roundness] as the sun, moon, representation of the universe--FLYING SAUCERS [?] Also, when mankind is troubled or fragmented [the "Cold War"; religious failings], mankind will find refuge in the symbols. It may not be as far fetched as it appears for it is evident that existence is full of troubles even though the "Cold War" has evaporated and replaced by terrorism; that religion has failed to patch the weakness of their ability to integrate and embrace a science oriented civilization. Seen any angels lately?

There is popular belief in the Jung approach and can be just as confusing and untenable as Freud. You must admit that Freud's compartmentalization of the mind is as bizarre as Jung's "collective unconscious" notions. Actual existence of these features may or may not exist but are nevertheless worthy tools for understanding human actions--individually and as a society. The examples you provided are significant for many reasons. The Harry Potter series is a wonderful delight in the reintroduction and clever blending of many old myths. Why are they popular? Well, that’s a much deeper issue and just may boil down to the fact that children as well as adults just enjoy a good story of fantasy. It may represent a somewhat secret realm where the laws of physics are suspended and provide an avenue for an alternate perspective of a possible reality. Maybe we just like good story. Of course, like the Star War episodes there is something beyond the obvious entertainment value of the spectacular and constant contesting of the laws of physics and that is the philosophical issue of "good and evil"--a modern morality play. All of these are major sophisticated perpetuation of the stories of Osiris, Isis, Gilgamesh, David and Goliath, and any of hundreds of mythological figures.

No doubt mythology and religion/theology are tightly bound, but there is a mythology bond to science as well. I am not exactly sure why other than to popularize and provide quaint stories of interesting and significant figures of science. Such mythology may not meet the iconoclastic status of a defiance of physics as exemplified in religion/theology and contain ulterior motives. And too, much of the broadly defined mythology takes on the form of anecdotes. Nevertheless, many are fun to read and the truth taken with a "grain of salt".

What about Archemedes?

One day as Archemedes was lowering himself into one of the public baths in the city, he noticed that some water flowed over the sides of the tub. It is said that he became so excited that he ran out of the bath house through the streets of Syracuse, yelling, "Eureka! Eureka!" In Greek it meant, "I found it! I found it!"

One myth led to another: The Golden Crown incident.

What about the Battle of Marathon?

Though this is probably a long forgotten story of the Marathon battle between the Greeks and Persians of 490 B.C. it is nevertheless a case where scientific investigation can shed some truth of past events. Historical accounts are detailed from the ancient texts of Herodotus and Plutarch and the story roughly goes like this. The victory of the battle was transmitted via a runner en route to Athens--one Pheidippides who ran nearly 25 miles in September, delivered his message of battle victory and warning of a sea surprise, and died on the spot. End of story--well, not quite. Apparently some individuals began to investigate the physiology of long distance running and astronomical events and came up with a new perspective. That the Battle of Marathon was not in September 490 B.C., but more likely in August 490 B.C. Poor Pheidippides most likely died from heat exhaustion as climate, season, and human endurance didn't mix well. Furthermore, moon phases [astronomy] was a significant factor for recent scholars and modern sleuths to formulate the dates of the events. It can get complex and best left to Tariq Malik's article "Marathon Man: Astronomer Sleuths Revise Date of Ancient Run".

What about Ben Franklin?

I'm sure we all recollect the representational images of Ben Franklin flying a kite in a thunderstorm and discovering the power of lightning. Well, while colorful, it is false. Franklin was not stupid and knew full well the power of lightning and certainly new better than to participate as a conductor of sky to earth lightning. Lightning rarely discriminates and will shorten life spans quickly. Actually Franklin was doing experiments on static electricity. His documents even indicated that the so-called "Philadelphia Experiment" wasn't even conducted in the city and that the actual experiment was done in the country from the top room in a two story house with specific safety features such as holding a ball of hemp for insulation.

What about Galileo?

"Historians are not sure if Galileo ever carried out experiments at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. So why, asks Robert P Crease, has the story become part of physics folklore?"

"The legend of the leaning tower"

What about Newton?

"NEWTON AND THE APPLE"

British UFO data released