And Then Science Took Us Further From the Truth.

To reach a factual understanding of reality, we must study myths. Science alone is not only insufficient but deceitful.

Humans often attach meaning to things—beings, events, and objects—in two ways. 

The first is to use the scientific method. You develop a hypothesis about a phenomenon, test it, and reach a conclusion. Since studies about the same event can result in opposing findings, a conclusion is more reliable the more people from many fields reach it.

The second method to attach meaning to something is to interpret what it means to us. Science can’t provide a definitive meaning of how or why we exist. Or what love is and its importance. Yet, if I say love means security and my friend says it means fun, we are both right, no matter what science says.

Some scientific disciplines value interpretation more than others. Social scientists use the scientific method to be objective and reach a consensus. But they are aware of the subjective and interpretative nature of their findings.

So, there are scientists who value interpretation. But they don't trust their explanations unless they use the scientific method.

We didn't stop confidently interpreting the world with the birth of science. In its earliest days, scientists valued beliefs that came from interpretation. This allowed them to understand both parts of the world—the part we grasp via science and the one we grasp via post-living interpretation.

¹Myths are the most extensive library of interpretations of reality. They have emotional, symbolic, and visual examinations of world events. By studying myths, we expose ourselves to the full spectrum of reality. This gives us at least a chance to understand it.

We will slow down scientific progress if we don’t study myths. 

We have arrived at many scientific findings thanks to believing in myths. Archeologist Heinrich Schliemann discovered Troy existed because he believed in the myths referenced in Homer’s Iliad. Aboriginal Australians have told stories about natural disasters from 7000 years ago. Scientists who believed these stories studied them, enriching the literature on how nature works. Many innovators in robotics and AI got into this field after reading Ancient Greek tales about biotechne.

Scientific research also reveals the truth when it studies common beliefs lacking evidence. I will illustrate this idea by looking at a paper I read recently. 

Twenty Sleep experts identified common sleep myths. In doing so, they debunked myths, such as that lying in bed with our eyes closed is almost as good as sleeping. Those reading the study discovered the truth, reducing their likelihood of spreading misinformation. The results also show some myths aren’t “true” or “false.” Experts disagreed on whether one night of inadequate sleep had lasting health consequences. So either the myth is true, or we need further scientific research. In both cases, studying myths gets us closer to the truth.

Here’s an overview of how researching myths works:

Many people criticize myths because they feel they are fictional or superstitious. Yet, we all act based on superstitions. We debate what is beautiful, right, or necessary. Science can try to provide a unifying stance, but there is none because we build superstitions based on interpretation. 

For instance, evolutionary theorists found men have preferred women with hourglass figures and symmetrical features across time. These attributes reflect a woman’s overall health and ability to carry babies. 

Despite this “truth,” some people claim all bodies are equally beautiful. These affirmations reject scientific evidence but are not false. People pushing these ideas may prefer bodies that deviate from historical preferences. And, in some areas of the world, men might prefer other features. 

The existence of truth in these people’s statements doesn’t make the scientific findings wrong, either. A fact applicable to a population can have outliers.

Both truths can coexist, and they strengthen each other. Assuming a “fact” is more accurate the more it replicates across events and time, in this case, science has the advantage. Gather a million men from all over the world, and you can predict the female body shape they prefer. Studying what the outliers prefer won’t change this. But seeing these beliefs as potentially true can contribute to knowledge. For example, it promotes research on how people choose, stay, or leave partners. All because of recognizing that believing in superstitions is not unscientific but human. 

Seek to understand myths.

Myths start as superstitions, like the ones we carry daily. They also have valuable insights into human behavior, such as scientific findings. So why don’t we study them?

The underlying cause is that we don’t understand myths. We aren’t used to deriving meaning from meaning, unlike primitive humans. Reading and researching from our desks became the alternative for many. So we “explain” myths in a way we understand—through science. In doing so, we reduce the importance of myths to “entertainment,” "superstition," or "fable."

In a world where you can find scientific findings supporting and opposing a hypothesis, it seems absurd to classify myths as nonsense. But myths that don’t match reality are hypotheses we have not yet proved, approximations of the truth. Thus, a source of information anyone interested in the search for truth must study. 

1. In the article, the term myth refers to (1) untested ideas we treat as true and (2) archetypes and stories passed down through history.