Chris Scheefer
Cbs5150@psu.edu
LAS Capstone
Science versus Myth – The Values that drive Truth
In John Maynard Smith’s Essay “Science and Myth” he provides two very distinct definitions of science
and of myth, compares and contrasts the two from several functional viewpoints, and then discusses
how they are intertwined and how in the end, science and myth both require each other. It’s a very
interesting essay that conveys good reason and the need for the distinction between science and myth
in order to facilitate and further our knowledge and understanding. Myth and Science are necessary for
human survival and for the advancement of our species. Understanding them and separating them is the
key element for furthering truth and scientific advancement.
In his essay Smith begins by providing several definitions and examples of the differences between
science and myth. Science according to Smith isn’t fair, moral, or just. It’s just fact. Morality in Science is
fallacy and is misuse and misappropriation. Assigning a moral tag to any particular science is removing
the real value of the science itself. Many people have tried to utilize sciences to support a moral position
and/or justify a value system, but in the end that is just fallacy. I agree with Smith in this regard. He gives
several good examples of these types of position such as Elaine Morgan’s “Descent of a woman” and
George Bernard Shaw’s “Back to Methuselah”, both of these utilize evolutionary theory as a means to
support a moral and philosophical position such as supporting the women’s movement and/or justifying
free will or individual endeavor. More modern examples that reinforce Smith’s position are genetics in
justifying homosexual right to gay marriage and global climate change being politicized to support a
liberal position in the United States. In and of itself, the science has no morality. It is just science and
fact without message.
Smith defines myth as a story or construct created to define the human condition, our place in nature,
and to give us a sense of purpose and value. The function of myth is also to give moral and evaluative
guidance. This is typically done through a series of stories that are intended to persuade and/or move
the audience in a particular way. Myths reinforce behavior and persuade others. Myths are intended to
create the very value system we all live under. Myths are something you cannot prove. It’s interesting
that even another thirty years after this article was written, the evolutionists still battle with the genesis
based Christians on a scientific basis. People still believe there is no difference between evolution and
the biblical account for creation. It is still difficult for people to separate Science from Myth, mostly due
to the value system they are basing the beliefs around. I agree with Smith, if you cannot test a theory,
then it more than likely cannot be held in the same order as scientific theory. This leads to the most
interesting section of Smith’s essay.
The true distinction according to Smith and Karl Popper is falsifiability, or the ability to separate science
from pseudoscience or myth. Scientific knowledge changes, it advances by fact and proving and/or
falsifying the theories. A great example is Newtonian and Einstein’s theory’s. They are based on
scientific theory that can be proven through scientific methods. They are in and of themselves falsifiable
based upon their very nature. This is the means by which you can separate myth and science. If you
cannot conceivably prove or disprove a theory it cannot be science. The creation theory from Genesis,
cannot be proven. I don’t know of an experiment that can prove that on the 7th day god created man. Or
can we prove that the missing rib from Adam was used to create Eve. There is not scientific way to prove
or disprove this story. Therefore we cannot categorize it in the same way we do the theory of evolution
and/or the general theory of relativity. This is not a judgment of Genesis at all, it’s a clear distinction
between the two. They both are necessary but in different ways. This is the distinction that Smith is
making in his essay. The need for the distinction of what is science and what is morality and a value
system.
This brings me to the key element and message of Smith’s essay. That science and myth require each
other to be successful. That normative science or myths serving as science will lead to “bad morality and
bad science.” That confining ourselves to only science is also the wrong path because science should not
tell us what is right or wrong, it’s just science, just fact. The only sensible view is that we need both
scientific theory and myths but we must be clear as to which is which. In order to even pursue science
one must first be committed to seeking the truth. This value system only comes from myth. Without
myth proving the moral background you cannot even begin to pursue it properly. Values do not derive
from science but are necessary to practice it. This is the defining message of the essay, that science and
myth require each other. The very pursuit of the truth and understanding comes from a morality, the
very adherence to scientific methods require moral fortitude and character. These can only come from
myth. Science and myth are intertwined and require each other to move us as a species forward. Smith’s
essay was a very interesting and enlightening read and I would recommend it and almost require it for
those pursuing the sciences.