During the lecture this week Leif talked about the "myth of objective truth". I found this idea the most interesting in this theme. As I wrote in the pre-reflection I think that it is possible to argue that science is mythology. The difference of the scientific mythology and mythologic mythology (such as any religious story of creation) has to be the purpose it has for (the scientific) society. We may all agree that Big Bang is the creation myth of today, at least in Swedish (atheistic) society. At the same time we regard it as a scientific fact. It is a truth. But the thing is that there are a multitude of truths that coexist. The biggest myth is the one of objective truth. There are truths but they are all subjective.
So when we promise to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth we still leave out which truths we are supposed to say. During the seminar someone said that news media select what truths they want to convey, based on some criteria based on how many readers they'll get or a political goal.
So when we go to next week's theme and start reading scientific articles we need to keep in mind what the truths are given and which are left out. Adorno and Horkheimer does this by only bringing up the arguments that prove their point but leave out others. It doesn't have to be purposefully though. Some things are just overlooked. Other things might be true in a specific time and context only to become obsolete later on or in another context.
I think that science is something that opposite to mythology. While myth helps people to describe unexplained phenomena in nature and get rid of fear and incomprehension, science tries to explain what happens and find reasons of things.
SvaraRadera