FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019685985> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019685985 endingPage "28" @default.
• W2019685985 startingPage "9" @default.
• W2019685985 abstract "The scientific study of myth is dominated by a paradigm that recognizes myth as having been viewed as truthful narrative history by past traditional cultures and yet is considered false or otherwise suspect by the modern scholars who study myth. Although virtually all scholars recognize that myth was of critical importance for traditional cultures, the attempt to elicit scientific reasons for this importance has led to many competing theories, few of which place an emphasis on the validity of myths as representing the product of actual observed historical natural events. This paradox may hinder our understanding of the origins of myth and prevent us from fully appreciating a critical aspect of why myth was so highly valued by past cultures. To set the stage for our examination of the possible natural history core of myth, we discuss briefly the history of the western scientific study of myth, with an emphasis on geological sciences. We then explore the cognitive structure of myth and provide working principles about how the historical information contained in these myths can be transmitted faithfully through successive generations and can be elicited by scientific study. Although recognizing the extreme complexity of myth as a cultural product, our data indicate that a science-based natural history approach can lead to important insights regarding the nature of myth. The modern study of myth is an important component of a number of academic disciplines in the social sciences and humanities including anthropology, art history, classics, comparative religion, folklore, psychology, and theology (Dundes 1984). Thousands of scholarly books and tens of thousands of articles and papers have been written about the topic of ‘myth’ and its study. The roots of myth go back in time to the very dawn of human history, and it is clear from the popularity of recent television shows such as Xena, and blockbuster movies such a Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings that myth continues to be a robust part of contemporary popular culture. Despite such popularity, the study of myth is beset by a tangled web of claims and contradictions. Although there are some generally accepted notions of what constitutes a myth, most scholars note that there is no universally accepted definition of the term, nor is there a consensus view of its nature and how it should be studied. Most typically, myths, along with legends and folktales, are viewed in the context of a division of orally transmitted prose or poetic narrative into three often overlapping components (e.g. Bascom 1965). Folktales are non-religious fictional stories meant to entertain, although they often teach a practical lesson or draw a moral. They are also nonhistorical in that they are not set in any particular place or time. Folktales should not be confused with the term ‘folklore’, the latter representing folktales and other creative verbal expressions (including also myth and legend) that are studied by folklorists using literary and ethnological techniques. ‘Legend’ and ‘myth’ are largely synonymous terms, as is evident in the various contributions contained in this volume. Legends for the most part are semi-historical stories believed true by the cultures in which they are told. They serve to establish local customs, recount the migrations of people, and account for the deeds of heroes. Legends typically combine realism with supernatural and mythic elements. Epic narratives are lengthy stories that often cross the boundary between legend and myth, often told in poetry or rhythmic prose or chant, the telling of which can last for hours or even days. Most traditional cultures had epics, From: PICCARDI, L. & MASSE, W. B. (eds) Myth and Geology. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 273, 9–28. 0305-8719/07/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2007. among the more famous of which are the Greek Iliad and Odyssey, the Icelandic Edda, the Hindu Mahabharata, and the Hawaiian Kumulipo genealogical chant. Myths are cultural accounts of major events that typically happened in the remote past of that culture, when the world was different to today. They are considered truthful by the traditional knowledge keepers who transmit the stories, and mostly are profoundly sacred or at least are imbued with strong religious and ritual overtones. Myths use supernatural characters (gods, demigods or animals) and storylines to express the limits and workings of the world and the place in nature of one’s cultural group—the latter also being a general concept commonly referred to as one’s ‘world view’. Anthropologist William Haviland (1975, p. 337), perceptively, stated that ‘The concepts of world view and science are intimately related, and it may be said that myth is the science of cultures which do not verify ‘truth’ about nature by means of experiment’. The fact that virtually all traditional knowledge keepers believe myths (and legends) to be historically true whereas nearly all scientists presume they do not represent factual historical events is a disquieting conundrum that tells us more about the biases of western science than the nature of myth. The great diversity of the scholarly works on myth shows that, although being one of the most studied subjects in the history of the social sciences and the humanities, it has not yet been entirely understood. At the crux of this confusion is the simple and straightforward question of whether or not the storyline content of myth has any basis in historical events or processes. A disdainful view of myth is easily demonstrated by a simple citation analysis of the editorial use of the term ‘myth’ in headers for articles and reports (none listed), and other sections (such as book reviews, correspondence, and research news; a total of ten cases) in the generally well-respected journals Nature and Science during the ten-year publication period of 1996 through 2005. Both the infrequency of the use of the term and its implied meaning are striking. The few times that ‘myth’ is used are virtually always in a pejorative sense, such as ‘time to bury misleading myth’, ‘dispelling a myth’, and ‘making reality fit the myth’. The two occurrences of the term in Science in 2005 (‘Sifting myths for truths about our world’, May 27; and ‘Tracking myth to geological reality’, November 4) defy this trend in that they specifically refer to work included in or written by authors of the present Myth & Geology volume. It can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that at least some myths and categories of myth are based on the observation of specific real natural phenomena and events that can be accurately placed in both space and time and can be linked to various types of physical evidence for the historical event. That we can make such unquestionable matches is because pertinent myth storylines contain rich details about the natural events and phenomena, and that one can find unambiguous confirmation and field evidence of their factual occurrence in the places indicated in the account. These accounts also appear to have structural rules and principles that shape the content and oral transmission of myth. In this paper, we briefly explore past scientific notions of myth and attempt to provide a somewhat different conception of those myths whose roots appear to lie in the observation of natural phenomena and events, in particular geological events. This perspective is slanted toward western science and the myths of western civilization. Throughout Asia and the Indian subcontinent, myth and science evolved together much more parsimoniously in that myth was never considered as being entirely separate from history (e.g. Lowe & Shaughnessy 1999, pp. 11–13; Chandrasekharam). For example, the sceptical contempt currently attached by western scholars and historians to China’s admittedly fragmentary and reconstructed Bamboo Annals (Legge 1994, pp. 105–188), with its striking mysterious and supernatural rulers and culture heroes, might change in the face of an analysis viewed in the context of its traditional roots and with our suggested framework by which to view its mythic content (see also Masse 1998). Certainly the encouraging results of the past several decades of dedicated research expended on identifying the realities of geophysical processes and events in the Bible (e.g. Greenberg 2005; Roberts; Trifonov) should serve to underscore the rich potential of Asian and Indian historical religious texts. Because many geologists are largely unfamiliar with the multidisciplinary science of cognition, we summarize basic deductions regarding the cognitive structure of myth that subjected myth to systematic (but reconstructible) distortions through time, and then show that the traditional transmission of myth was generally efficient and conservative. We also discuss how celestial and Earth phenomena and events make up a large portion of myth storylines. Our focus here is on myth in geology, or geomythology (sensu Vitaliano 1973, and this volume), which we define as ‘the study of the geological origin of myths and legends’. Astronomy shares with the Earth sciences a kindred relationship in that both can be used not only to demonstrate the reality of many myths but also to serve as vehicles by which to mine myths for important information about these natural processes and W. B. MASSE ET AL. 10" @default.
• W2019685985 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019685985 creator A5052512254 @default.
• W2019685985 creator A5057368657 @default.
• W2019685985 creator A5062481309 @default.
• W2019685985 creator A5067406348 @default.
• W2019685985 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2019685985 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2019685985 title "Exploring the nature of myth and its role in science" @default.
• W2019685985 cites W1514567660 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W1970435959 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W1970452318 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2000440700 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2004001040 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2012059361 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2039866446 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2050468594 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2058326415 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2072188331 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2073478171 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2081910176 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2115952847 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2152871511 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2316763831 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W2317089884 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W380046499 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W4211214713 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W4237883768 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W4299936751 @default.
• W2019685985 cites W4300481244 @default.
• W2019685985 doi "https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.2007.273.01.02" @default.
• W2019685985 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2019685985 type Work @default.
• W2019685985 sameAs 2019685985 @default.
• W2019685985 citedByCount "27" @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852013 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852014 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852015 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852018 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852019 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852020 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852021 @default.
• W2019685985 countsByYear W20196859852022 @default.
• W2019685985 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019685985 hasAuthorship W2019685985A5052512254 @default.
• W2019685985 hasAuthorship W2019685985A5057368657 @default.
• W2019685985 hasAuthorship W2019685985A5062481309 @default.
• W2019685985 hasAuthorship W2019685985A5067406348 @default.
• W2019685985 hasBestOaLocation W20196859852 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C519517224 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C111472728 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C124952713 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C127413603 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C138885662 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C142362112 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C519517224 @default.
• W2019685985 hasConceptScore W2019685985C55587333 @default.
• W2019685985 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2019685985 hasLocation W20196859851 @default.
• W2019685985 hasLocation W20196859852 @default.
• W2019685985 hasOpenAccess W2019685985 @default.
• W2019685985 hasPrimaryLocation W20196859851 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W1514754916 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W187821909 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W1969420037 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W2060773178 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W2068007117 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W2475567413 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W2554092057 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W3008477598 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W4200324802 @default.
• W2019685985 hasRelatedWork W4246989417 @default.
• W2019685985 hasVolume "273" @default.
• W2019685985 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019685985 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019685985 magId "2019685985" @default.
• W2019685985 workType "article" @default.