h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

if they did exist they wouldnt be called mythical

Damn you, you literalist. You beat me to the punch.

but what about things that we thought were myths or stories that have come out latter to being based on truth...
things may be improbable but still be possible

()

They just haven't been prooven to science's satisfaction as to exisiting. That doesn't mean they're not real, just means they aren't featured in science text books yet

No, by definition a mythical creature exists only in stories. The Loch Ness Monster is not mythical, as there is genuine speculation as to its existence and possible identity. The Minotaur is mythical. It lives in the mythical Labyrinth at Minos, which is now situated in London. I know because I've been there. When the train comes, a man shouts "Minotaurs!"

Interesting example, there is some speculation that the labyrinth of Minos is real. But you're right, it is the wrong word to use.

Actually it's a bit more than speculation regarding Minos's labyrinth at Knossos, as I was there a couple of months ago and it seemed fairly real.

The problem of course is that words change over the years. Originally 'labyrinth' had nothing to do with a maze (I seem to recall that it actually means the room of the large hammer, or something like that). Bulls were kept at Knossos in standard (though quite large) rooms and there were 'games' involving young men and women with the bulls, in which the young people didn't always survive. Add a couple of hundred years and a couple of skilled story tellers and you get minotaurs and mazes and balls of string....

I could probably have remembered a few more facts if it hadn't been for the ouzo....

Mythical creatures do need to be renamed.

How about "creatures waiting to be discovered"?

No, mythical creatures don`t need to be renamed. People need to use the correct definition when talking about real, living animals. Mythical means 1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history.
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : FICTITIOUS. Note the word in capitals at the end.

OK. Does the term "fictitious" include things seen whilst mentally unbalanced?

I ask because during a period of high stress I went to Tintagel and I swear, I saw a Dragon overfly the castle.
(It was big! No, bigger than that...this thing was BIG!)

Now, I will cheerfully agree that I could have been hallucinating. I was the only person to make the sighting, the weather conditions were cloudy and threatening rain, I wasn't under the influence of drink or drugs of any kind but I can't be considered a reliable witness...
(but it was so BIG!)

If a creature seen whilst...ah...traversing a tricky mindscape...counts as fictitious then I have seen a mythical creature. Which contradicts it s status as mythical, since it's been seen.

I think you might need to take that up with Oolon Colluphid, God or both.

`Seeing` something that no one else sees doesn`t count as existing in reality. If I dream about dragons, it doesn`t make them real (except to me in my dream.)

wouldn’t that all depend on the definition of reality and existence....haven't those things been debated for centuries


()

The point here is a simple one-- mythical creatures don`t exist, by definition. Thats why they are called mythical - to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

Would it be better to say "legendary creatures"? Lots of things are legendary, and yet really do (or did) exist. Daniel Boone and the Earl of Tyrone are two examples that spring to mind.

what in the bloody hell is a literalist?

there is an infanate possibillity of anything happening. and i meen anything. thus there is a posibility that mythical creatures did exist and do exist. the only problem is that the odds are highly in my favor. thus concluding that they dont or have a very high probubility of not existing. good point though

where have they been PROOVEN outside of science textbooks and everything else relating to science? in other words, people have said that they exist, but have failed to prove that they exist

no no no, a thousand times no. go boil an egg

Although "mythical", by a definition (I say "a definition" because particular definitions vary depending on what you consult), means not existing, the root is "myth" - and myths, though fanciful and usually creation-oriented (that is, explaining unexplained things such as the creation of the world), do contain truth in some form, whether just a kernel or the larger basis of it.

Thus, one could conclude that "mythical" creatures do or did exist, but not necessarily in their popularised form.

Also, "mythical" is a word that is given to creatures that are believed to not exist. It is entirely possible that some things did exist and are now extinct, so although they are considered mythical because they do not exist now, it could be misleading in that it causes us to think that it never did.

I mean take unicorns for example. Other than the reports of eyewitnesses, what reason would someone have to construct what is, in the short descritpion, a horse with a single horn? That's not really fanciful enough when compared to things like griffins and the like. It is entirely possible that they did exist and were hunted to extinction, much like how the modern rhino is currently in danger of the same thing. (And for the same reasons, I might add.)

Umm, anyway, that's my tangent.