Center of the Cyclone

History and Myth - Contraries or Contradictories?

History is considered by many to be an exact science of objectively
recording present events for future reference. unfortunately, as
with most popular considerations, this is not the case. History
involves the interpretation and bias of the historian, and is open
to both the interpretations and biases of the readers - a perfect
example of catch-22.

History and myth both contain propositions or claims which could be
verified as either historically true or historically false. the
problem to face now is whether the historical references we use to
verify these claims are indeed accurate depictions of events which
had transpired long ago.

enter mythology. if philosophy is the mother of all sciences, myth
must have been her drunkard husband. quoting myself from another
forum, "mythology is one of the earliest ways by which people can
explain, within the context of their culture, events which happen
beyond their control and understanding." the only essential
difference between philosophy and myth would be that the former is
restricted by the use of reason (whether sound or not), while the
latter simply boils down to subjective inferential speculation and
is not subject to rational inquiry.

Just as children mature and become independent, the sciences have
metamorphopsized from natural philosophy, whose only requirement is
that a claim be rational, into empirical verificationism and
objectivism.

genetics. irony.

those who think that science is objective are mistaken. Science
carries with it a taint of mythology - the gene of subjectivism.
Theories are not based on what is the case, but on what we simply
perceive as the case. scientific theories are simply inductive
hypotheses supported by observed facts, and could be falsified at
any time by a counterexample. falsifiability is what essentially
separates science from philosophy. it is useful in weeding out
excessive speculation, but it is not an absolute safeguard against
error.

Is the bible historically accurate? perhaps a better question would
be whether history itself is accurate, in the sense that its claims
are true. assuming a positive answer to both questions, does this
automatically qualify the entire bible as truth?, not necessarily.
it would have been the case had the bible’s propositions been
factual and its claims literary. the bible contains prophecies
(propositions) based on future contingency, to which truth values
cannot be assigned. moreover, it contains figurative language, which
is essentially subject to hermeneutics before it can be logically
scrutinized. the best that we could say is that some parts of the
bible are historically accurate.

Is the DVC historically accurate? same question as above. given that
the plot of the work is fictional, albeit some factual claims are
assumed as historically accurate, it could be said that some parts
of the DVS are historically accurate.

Logically speaking a contradictory relation is expressed by two
propositions whose truth-values are diametrically opposed to each
other at any given instance, such as "the sun is yellow" and "the
sun is not yellow." In a contradiction, the truth value of the
second proposition is always the opposite of the first. on the other
hand, a contrary relation simply states that two propositions cannot
be both true at any given instance, such as "the sun is yellow"
and "the sun is red," where yellow is not red (no shades of yellow
are shades of red).

some parts of the DVC are historically accurate and some parts of
the bible are historically accurate. does the DVC contradict the
bible? based on the above definition of a contradiction, it does
not. however, some parts of it may have contrary relation to some
parts of the bible, and vice versa. this means to say that the two
are compatible in some parts, but in points of conflict, only one
could be true - or both could be false.

in the end it all boils down to our premises. in points of conflict
between the bible and the DVC, do we believe that the bible is true?
if we do, then the DVC is false; if not, then either the DVC is
true, or both could be false.  do we believe that the DVC is true?
if we do, then the bible is false; if we do not, then the bible
could be true, or both could be false. if we believe that both are
true, we should be prepared to face a contradiction. credo quia
absurdion, as they say. if we do not believe that either is true,
then the discussion does become moot. all this is just much ado
about nothing.