Many of the statements in myths are testable. Some claims are credible. Most testable claims not true. Some of the things that are true are trivially true, as the example I gave where a tree can indeed grow from a seed.
If one creation myth says that humans came from "the nethermost of the four cave-wombs of the world", another creation myth say that humans come from logs given spirit and life, and a third says that people come from the tears of Khepri, then we know that at least two of them, if not all three, are incorrect - even if we cannot test them directly.
(In any case, we can test them - none of those myths are compatible with the physical evidence of human evolution.)
The original statement was that "many [myths] must, necessarily, contain a kernel of truth". My question was, how do we tell which is the kernel of truth? That trees grow from seeds? Or that humans come from cave-dwelling creatures? Or that the Zuni people tried to make sense of the petrified bones and landscape forms by creating a post-hoc story to explain things?
At some point the suggestion that there is a 'kernel of truth' become useless, as there is a kernel of truth in nearly everything that humans do.
Your statement, that myths could be used to understand history, is not controversial. I gave examples from the 1800s and 1900s as previous examples, and there are certainly many more.
If one creation myth says that humans came from "the nethermost of the four cave-wombs of the world", another creation myth say that humans come from logs given spirit and life, and a third says that people come from the tears of Khepri, then we know that at least two of them, if not all three, are incorrect - even if we cannot test them directly.
(In any case, we can test them - none of those myths are compatible with the physical evidence of human evolution.)
The original statement was that "many [myths] must, necessarily, contain a kernel of truth". My question was, how do we tell which is the kernel of truth? That trees grow from seeds? Or that humans come from cave-dwelling creatures? Or that the Zuni people tried to make sense of the petrified bones and landscape forms by creating a post-hoc story to explain things?
At some point the suggestion that there is a 'kernel of truth' become useless, as there is a kernel of truth in nearly everything that humans do.
Your statement, that myths could be used to understand history, is not controversial. I gave examples from the 1800s and 1900s as previous examples, and there are certainly many more.