Folklore, Legend, and Myth

February 23rd, 2010

Most people use the words folklore, myth, and legend pretty much interchangeably. We have the Mythbusters (a great show despite an inaccurate name). Most folks refer to “urban myths” when they’re really “urban legends,” or say “oh, that’s just a myth” when describing something they think is totally false. Legends are usually equated with local stories told about larger-than-life beings or events, i.e. “the legend of Bigfoot” or “the legend of Boggy Creek.”

If the terms are interchangeable, why do we have three of them?

As is often the case, there are actually functional differences between each term. For all practical purposes the (admittedly somewhat subtle) differences are only relevant to people like me, who study subjects like legends, history and the ways in which they intersect. The three areas are generally closely related, and of course the exact definitions vary depending on who you ask. Here’s the way I usually break it all down.

Folklore literally means “stories of the people” and usually refers to songs, proverbs, stories, dances, practices, traditions, and popular beliefs though this isn’t a complete list.  Examples of folklore might include the tradition of throwing salt over ones’ shoulder to dispel evil (i.e. “throwing salt in the Devil’s eye”) or spitting on a newly married couple in order to wish them luck. Practices and stories that fall under the category of folklore don’t necessarily have religious connotations, though it’s equally likely they will. Stories of betting with the Devil and winning by trickery fall into the realm of folklore. Other examples of folklore are completely mundane in nature.

Probably the best short definition I’ve ever heard for myth is “the way a society explains itself, to itself.” Myths are generally religious or otherwise sacred in nature, and involve characters or events from the distant, or not so distant, past. The stories of Prometheus stealing fire from the Gods, of Romulus and Remus founding Rome, or of the American ideas of “manifest destiny” and “the melting pot” are all examples of myth. In the latter example, the arrival and integration of immigrants from far-flung cultures is presented as the way in which American society has developed. According to the myth, each group brings its special character to while merging into American society as a whole — a case of heterogeneous groups becoming a homogeneous whole.

Myths explain why something is as it is — the objectives of a society, the way in which it was founded, or the belief systems it supports.

Myths may be seen as true within the culture in which they are created, but false from the viewpoint of other cultures. Examples might be the 19th century Chinese idea that China was the only advanced, “civilized” country in the world while all others were primitive barbarians, or the Nazi myth of Aryan superiority. The “truth” of a given myth depends on context and worldview; it is not dependent on factual evidence or objective detail. Myths can become even more dangerous when groups attempt to fulfill or “prove” the factual nature of a myth despite evidence of its falsity.

Legends are tales about (allegedly) real people performing real actions in the real world. In general, a legend doesn’t involve supernatural or impossible actions, and is relevant to a very specific area or group of people. Urban Legends, for example, are always told in the context of locations that are recognizable to the hearer.  A telling of “the choking Doberman” heard in Boston, Massachusetts will always involve nearby towns or streets. The same tale told in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, will involve locations in or near that town. If a legend is adapted to another setting, its details will be altered to suit its new environment.

Some legends are more esoteric and remote, yet still involve allegedly real locations and people.  Atlantis, Shangi-La, and Robin Hood are examples of this genre; they all involve stories of places that may have existed and people who performed actions well within the realm of human possibility.

None of these cultural tales necessarily remain static. They will be altered over time, either through inaccuracies in oral transmission, additions of new details (sometimes taken from other stories) or evolving needs among those to whom they’re relevant. Tracing the evolution of myths, folktales, and legends can reveal a great deal about changing values, social situations, and psychologies of the societies in which they’re told.

Posted in Folklore | No Comments »

Fear of Change

January 29th, 2010

If you want to make enemies, try to change something — Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)

The current debate over the establishment of universal health care in the US conjures up many cases in recorded history of an almost pathological resistance to the very idea of change. One can almost imagine some Neolithic human scratching his head and saying “I don’t know about these metal tools…if we stop using stone, the whole world might end.” Fear of change seems to be ingrained into the human psyche. Those who resist it most fiercely often invoke the idea that change will result in social collapse, the anger of the gods, an overturning of a so-called “natural order”, or some calamity that will sweep away whole nations.

We don’t have to go far to find examples. Until comparatively recently, military commanders tried to keep women out of the armed forces on the premise that it would upset the natural order and have a negative impact on discipline (an excuse recycled later on to justify opposition to openly gay soldiers). Opponents claimed women were too frail, too valuable, or somehow unfit for combat. In at least one case authorities rationalized opposition by claiming women shouldn’t be in combat units because being in the field during menstruation would be unhealthy!

In the 1940-1960 time frame, Southern conservatives invoked the image of social disorder in order to block passage of the Civil Rights Act. Likewise, military authorities used the “negative impact on discipline” excuse to rationalize opposition to integrated units. Not many people like to remember that US military units were strictly segregated, and blacks generally prohibited from serving in combat units (with some notable exceptions), until after the Korean War.

Moving backward, there was widespread opposition to women’s suffrage from its inception in the 1850s until the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1920. Again, excuses varied. Some men claimed women would lose their “moral superiority” should they be dragged into the rough and tumble of male-dominated politics, while others insisted they were too frail or (far worse) too unintelligent to participate in intellectual exercises. Others resisted on the basis of Biblical teachings.

The reality is clear: humans love the status quo. They fear change, and will resort to any argument or rationalization in order to avoid confronting it. Fear takes many forms: fear of loss of control, fear of the unknown, or simple fear that a wrong decision will result in unspecified negative effects.  Opponents of the current health care bill are no different. They invoke the classic American bogeyman of socialism, which many wrongly equate with communism (the two are radically different). They claim costs will spiral out of control, or simply fall back on the non sequitur that “the government shouldn’t be trusted with anything important…they’ll just mess it up.” Worse, many simply claim a public health system is “un-American” — a classic and meaningless charge designed to inflame passions.

Change is difficult. It’s upsetting. People dislike it, even when it means nothing more than a one block detour from their daily route due to construction. We are creatures of habit, of custom, and of superstition. Yet without change, we’d still be banging rocks together in caves and wrestling with squirrels over hickory nuts.

It’s time to grow up and stop hiding behind feeble excuses. Whether the debate is over health care, racial equality, or women’s rights, reason and ethics should never take a back seat to fear-mongering.

Posted in History | No Comments »

Science, Denial, and Evidence

January 21st, 2010

Science:  a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Another is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Science is not about truth or belief. It’s about evidence and data, and how data correlate to a topic under research. For example: a medical researcher thinks a specific substance will help people recover more successfully from the common cold. To test this hyphothesis a double-blinded study is designed, in which a number of patients (the more the better) who have consented to be part of the study are given either the substance being studied or a harmless placebo. Double blinded means neither the research staff nor the patients know which of the two substances are being given to a specific person. This is done to remove experimenter and patient bias from the equation.

Once the cadre of patients has been established and data have been gathered, a statistical analysis is run on the results. If the results show a significant number of patients apparently benefited from the substance  — based on a fixed set of criteria established prior to the study, such as duration of their cold — then it can be said that the evidence suggests the substance was helpful in the application under study. A result must be recorded and published even if no difference between the substance and the placebo is noted. Real science must be honest regarding its results, both positive and negative.

This is one of the reasons the scientific community often objects to claims made by retailers of herbal and other so-called “alternative” medications, which require no scrutiny and often undergo no testing before or after they’re introduced to the marketplace. Supplements, which include herbal remedies, were significantly deregulated by the US Congress in the mid 1990s as the result of pressure from retailers who apparently saw no benefit to submitting their products for review under the FDA drug guidelines. Congressional members apparently were deluded into thinking that herbal remedies were not drugs, which is completely incorrect.

A few alternative therapies have been put through traditional double-blinded studies, and in most cases have failed to show any actual benefit. Several — ephedra, for example — have been proven significantly dangerous (far more so than, for example, the pharmaceutical Vioxx which was also pulled from the marketplace due to safety concerns). The response by vitamin and herbal supplement companies has been underwhelming. They continue making claims of the efficacy of their products while hiding behind many “weasel words” in order to shield themselves from litigation or failure of the product to produce a desirable result.

“Weasel words” are ways of hedging a bet while claiming nothing of value. For example, many herbal supplements carry caveats that, used in nearly any other context, would set consumers’ teeth on edge. A bottle of Flaxseed oil states that “Consumption of Omega-3 fatty acids may support cardiovascular health.” On the front label it states “Omega-3 for Heart Health.” But at the bottom rear of the bottle is also a warning that “these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

So this product may (a weasel word) be useful, but the manufacturer can’t cite any evidence that it actually is useful. And the vitamin/herbal market in the US is (as of 2009) a $25 billion dollar industry with a lot of clout among Congressional members who generally have zero understanding of science, so regulation will probably never again occur.

Just imagine if you were considering buying a car that claimed very high safety ratings and 50MPG fuel efficiency, but spotted a caveat at the bottom of the sticker saying that these claims had ever been tested. Would you buy the car? Probably not. Yet people buy supplements and herbal products that carry the same caveats every day and think nothing of it.

Even worse are so-called homeopathic remedies, which make use of a totally unproven 19th century claim that water “retains vibrations” introduced by various substances added to it, no matter how heavily diluted the water becomes. This is allegedly true even if the dilution is taken to an extreme in which “only one molecule of it per 7 million billion billion billion billion pills.” Yet proponents of homeopathic medicines refuse to acknowledge that, if this is true, that water also retains the “vibrations” of every element or substance it’s come in contact with over millions of years.

What does that say about water that’s passed through the sewage and purification system of multiple cities before being used to create homeopathic medicines? Yes, that’s right. If true, water also retains “vibrations” from excrement, urine, heavy metals, and the elements found in bedrock. Even well water is full of other substances since it has passed through soil layers and various other substances. As large a retailer as the Boots pharmaceutical company in the UK has admitted that they know homeopathy doesn’t work, but they’re willing to sell the products if people want them.

Michael Specter’s excellent book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives
(2009) details the irrational thinking that plagues our society today. He discusses the human inability to determine risk (which I’ve discussed before), the gullibility we exhibit when confronted with uncomfortable evidence, and a growing tendency to discount data and evidence in favor of faith and instinct.  The latter has been used by everyone from celebrity doctors to religious groups to deceive the population, and this trend shows no signs of abating anytime soon.

The public has turned against science, largely because they don’t understand it and fear the image of the unethical, sociopathic madman portrayed in so many bad movies over the years. What they don’t seem to understand is that our current society would not exist without science. We would still be living in rude houses, falling prey to minor illnesses, eating what would grow in local soils with minimal fertilizer, and unable to communicate over any but the shortest distances. I’d really like to see a typical science denier live for a year under those conditions. It might make for very entertaining reality TV.

Posted in General Science | No Comments »

How Quickly They Forget (repost)

January 19th, 2010

The last decade has seen a great deal of public posturing over the integration of religion and politics in the US. Conservatives claim that the United States is a “Christian Nation” and that what “we” need is a return to those fabled days of yore when all Americans were God-fearing and pious.

But is any of that really true?

The first issue to address is the “Christian Nation” concept. Whether the assertion is correct is dependent on how one define that term. If the claim is that the early US was predominantly populated by self-identified Christians then it’s correct. However, it is absolutely incorrect to claim that the government of the US is based on Christian principles, or that the US is a Christian nation in the same way that, for instance, Iran is a Muslim nation.

The US government does not operate under the guidance of a priestly caste, as was the case in Medieval Italy and France, not to mention today’s Iran.

In fact, the US government was designed explicitly to exclude such guidance, and for good reason. European governments prior to the Enlightenment were often directly under the control, whether overt or no, of a priestly body. One need only look at France, where cardinals and other religious officials held offices within the government itself. The church’s support was actively sought when monarchs wished to fight wars or make other changes.

Likewise, citizens could be imprisoned by the religiously-influenced state for “religious offenses.” Apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, and other non-secular crimes were punishable by terms in prison.

An extreme case of religion directly affecting daily society was obviously the Inquisition, which had the authority to arrest, torture, and punish anyone they chose to target. This power was massively abused. Citizens were arrested as the result of arguments with neighbors. Vendettas were carried out. Property owned by those accused by the Inquisition was seized by the church, and was frequently awarded to the accuser either in whole or in part.

The Founding Fathers of the US were children of the Age of Enlightenment. They recognized the danger of combining religion, of any type, with secular power. They also believed in the concept of certain inalienable rights, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

The structure they built was entirely secular in nature, and with good reason. These founders were well aware of the abuse inherent in such systems, having seen them in action across Europe and the Middle East.

It is worthy to note that, by the middle of the 19th century, most European nations had also abolished ties between state and religious bodies Religious crimes like heresy were no longer punishable by imprisonment. States moved away from monarchical systems in which state power was alleged to derive from God’s sanction, toward a more democratic system in which political power lay largely in the hands of the people and their designated representatives.

Those who assert that the US is, or should be administered as a “Christian” nation would do well to examine history and the reasons the US government was created in its present form. They do not understand, or more likely are simply unaware of, the abuses our current form of government was intended to avoid.

Posted in History | No Comments »

Scientists are from Mars, Believers are from Venus

January 19th, 2010

Over the last few decades I’ve been exploring the age-old debate between belief and evidence, and why the two camps never seem to reach common ground. For a rationalist like myself, the choice is a non-starter. In areas where it’s appropriate (i.e. science, history, medicine, and other empirical subjects) evidence has to trump belief. One should never start from a conclusion (i.e. “UFOs are visitors from another planet”) and cherry-pick or invent data to fit that conclusion.

Note the distinction. I’ve no heartache if someone just wants to believe in ghosts, God (pick any), or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (long may his noodly appendage wave). That’s a matter of personal choice, and you’re welcome to it. But I and others who share this attitude tend to get testy when supporters of a given topic start citing invalid or suspect evidence to support their beliefs.

For example, the substance Thimerosal has become permanently embedded in the public consciousness because of its alleged link with autism. Celebrities, who generally shouldn’t be trusted with anything more important than a burned-out match, have jumped on the bandwagon. Concerned parents claim their child became autistic as a direct result of vaccination, and many outlandish claims have been made regarding the “evidence” surrounding Thimerosal, which was largely removed from vaccines years ago as a result of the uproar.

The problem with all this is that the alleged autism link was based on a single study involving only twelve (yes that’s right) individuals. And the researcher who published it used a flawed methodology. Since then, numerous additional studies have been run using much larger patient cohorts, often well over a thousand, and none have shown a link with autism. Yet the hysteria persists, with many vaccines-cause-autism supporters either ignoring the new data or claiming it’s tainted by so-called “big Pharma” tampering (a form of special pleading).

The debate between evolution and creation is another example of the same phenomenon. Scientists cite the mountains of data that support evolution as the mechanism by which modern humans appeared on Earth, while creationists continue to support divine intervention. The problem is not the latter’s belief, as stated earlier. It’s that the case they present requires a preconceived conclusion (”God did it”) and shoe-horns the available evidence into conformance with this conclusion.

Science doesn’t work that way: it starts with a hypothesis, compares it with data derived from experimental or other resources, then arrives at a conclusion based on that evidence. The conclusion is always subject to revision if new evidence becomes available. Scientists don’t believe in evolution, the heliocentric view of the solar system, or quantum theory: they accept (or don’t accept) the evidence supporting it, and understand that it’s all provisional. But that’s generally not how the rest of the world understands or perceives evidence.

Interestingly, the business world is a good place to turn for an understanding of the rationale surrounding belief-based reasoning. Business cases, which are commonly used when determining which strategies and projects will be adopted, follow a methodology very similar to those used by non-scientists.

In a business case, the conclusion generally is presented first. The author then describes and outlines evidence that directly supports the conclusion, as well as any supporting documentation that was used to arrive at it. The document is designed to persuade, not necessarily to educate, the reader. While a business case can (and should) present evidence both pro and con, the document is based on the assumption that this evidence has already been weighed. The intent is to persuade an audience that the conclusion as the appropriate course of action for the business.

An instructor at the Harvard Business School told me this concept is often extremely difficult to teach to scientists and engineers who are used to approaching the problem from the opposite (evidence-based) direction. This also explains why scientists and religious folk, or engineers and business people, are often at loggerheads. They speak totally different languages and, generally, have different goals. One side wants all data to be taken into account before a conclusion is reached and is often completely disinterested in the politics of the situation. The other has already decided on a course of action, and isn’t interested in additional argument unless it represents a threat to that decision.

Understood in this way, it’s no wonder the two sides argue as they do.

Posted in General Science | No Comments »

The End of Curiosity

January 19th, 2010

Recently a friend & I were talking about the near impossibility of finding certain bits of hardware and electronics gear in the retail market. We’ve both been involved in electronics, chemistry, ham radio, and other activities since we were kids (was it that long ago?). I was in the process of rebuilding a 12 volt relay for another guy’s car — a skill that’s practically vanished in today’s disposable world. It occurred to both of us that a large percentage of kids in more recent generations aren’t actively involved in hands-on hobbies that have the potential to teach them any basic science, much less inspire the fragile blooms of curiosity and analytical thinking to grow. But they can all text at the speed of sound and beat any Xbox game to smithereens, so I guess that’s something.

In some cases, truly educational toys (read: erector and chemistry sets) have been practically legislated out of existence by our paranoid, litigation-mad, safety-fanatical society. When I was a kid, my dad brought home electrical components, chemicals and gear of the type found in typical Gilbert chemistry sets, and other interesting devices. He’d hand these to me with the suggestion “make something out of this.” I invented a latching photoelectric relay, a mechanical counter, and an absolutely amazing flare powder that could melt Pyrex glass. If he gave me things like that today, Social Services would throw him in jail for child endangerment. There’s something wrong there.

In other cases, changes in technology have led to a lack of availability of certain very basic components. I needed a roll of magnet wire for the above-mentioned relay work, but no one in a 60 mile radius of my house had it in stock because it’s become such an unnecessary item in the modern world. But how will kids learn the basic building blocks of electricity (electromagnets, motors, coils, solenoids, etc.) without access to this most fundamental component? And are any of them even interested in such projects?

Curiosity is something that is acquired at a very early age, or not at all. How many kids in our Xbox generation develop that basic level of curiosity unless their parents somehow instill it in them? And how many parents actually have the time, not to mention the willingness (and ability) to teach these basic skills? One can’t pass on skills one doesn’t possess, which suggests that we’re on a downward spiral of sorts. The characteristics that built modern society — curiosity, critical thinking, and analytical skills — are becoming endangered species. This is, as others have noted, killing our ability to compete in the global market.

This is not just about science, either. History is another area that’s lacking, and my impression is that it’s because of the boring way in which the subject is generally taught in public school. In many cases history is presented as “names, dates, and places” — in other words, as dry memorization of facts with little context around them. Other writers have commented on this (see James Loewen’s excellent Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong for examples) and it’s definitely a problem. Students who aren’t engaged, who can’t find anything interesting about the subject under study, are not likely to continue reading about it after class is finished. Thus we have generations of students whose only exposure to actual history are the often badly written, boring, politically correct, sanitized textbooks found in public schools. These are also, in my experience, the folks most likely to freak out over new discoveries that threaten what they were taught. They see history is some immutable, set-in-stone thing that can never be altered as the result of new evidence.

This isn’t an indictment of teachers or the educational system as a whole. With the ongoing doubling of human knowledge in ever shorter periods of time, today’s students need to learn far more in far less time than any previous generation. But I wonder if basic skills aren’t being sacrificed for the sake of passing tests, of showing “progress” that can be measured in a grade book and transformed into the electronic equivalent of a gold star.

The question is whether a downward spiral is in effect. Is each generation less “capable” than the last due to the loss of certain core skills in favor of others more necessary for survival in the modern world? Are we in the process of giving up basic curiosity and critical thinking in favor of relying on technological tools that answer our every question at the touch of a few keys? In other words, are we becoming, as some suggested years ago, a nation of technically competent barbarians?

Posted in General Science, History | No Comments »