"Aristotle and Polybius, so defiant when they are confronting Myth, did not believe in the historicity of Theseus or Aeolus, king of the wind, out of conformity or political calculation. Nor did they seek to challenge myths, but only to rectify them. Why rectify them? Because nothing that does not presently exist is worthy of belief. But then, why not challenge it all? Because the Greeks never admitted that the mythmaking process could lie to everyone about everything. The ancient problematic of myth, as we will see, is bounded by two dogmas that were unconscious, for they were self-evident. It was impossible to lie gratuitously, or lie about everything to everyone, for knowledge is only a mirror; and the mirror blends with what it reflects, so that the medium is not distinguished from the message."
Paul Veyne writes the above in the fourth chapter of his essay "Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?" While very clear, I feel it must be said that the detraction of hyperboles from myths is the catalyst for absolutism in scientific belief. It is natural to denigrate the cultural importance of legends when we begin to dull the impact of storytelling by subjugating its elements with the exactness we require of the scientific method.
When we ground tall tales in reality and subject them to the laws of physics, we lose the wisdom of knowing paradoxical truth. I think there is beauty in total belief of stories whose absurdity match the imagination of children and whose basis we know down to the fibers of our heart hold true.