Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA25075 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:14:02 GMT Message-ID: <38D3F12F.F01F60CE@fcol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:12:16 -0500 From: "Robert G. Grimes" <grimes@fcol.com> Organization: Grimes & Grimes, Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: objections to "memes" References: <20000317205517.17364.qmail@nw175.netaddress.usa.net> <3.0.1.32.20000318130035.011d943c@popmail.mcs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Aaron Lynch wrote:
> Snipped for brevity...
> Quantum chromodynamics as a theoretical paradigm did not depend upon the
> word "quark" being chosen as a name for a class of particles. Given that it
> was, imagine that various schools of thought arose: some say quarks are
> never in a hadron, others say they are always in hadrons (at least at
> observed temperatures). Others say that "quarks" consist of the slightly
> more directly observable but still abstractly defined "behaviors" of
> hadrons. Still others say that quarks are found among the "artifacts" of
> hadrons, such as hydrogen bubble trails, wire chamber impulses,
> scintilations, etc. Still others allow for combinations of the above,
> saying that the bubble trails, the "behaviors," and the hadrons are all
> "quark vehicles." The OED might have weighed in by discovering and
> publishing some common element of meaning running between all the popularly
> spreading "quark" definitions, and so on. If that had happened, we might
> reasonably expect someone like Gardner to call the whole terminology
> situation a mess. We also might expect Gardner and others not to even see
> any distinct theoretical paradigm amid all the terminological chaos. Faced
> with such a situation, physicists might have been better off surrendering
> the word "quark" to the masses and expressing quantum chromodynamics in
> different words. I realize that there is no isomorphism between quantum
> chromodynamics and evolutionary culture propagation paradigms, but none is
> needed to see how terminology can work for or against a scientific endeavor
> or class of paradigms.
>
> In any case, I don't think we are in a position to presume that all "meme
> critics" are simply feeling threatened by our more powerful paradigm. In
> many cases, the word "meme" has not even helped convey a powerful paradigm
> to them, due to its weakened usefulness in communication.
>
> --Aaron Lynch
Great analogy, Aaron, we get the "flavor" of it immediately...
Cordially,
Bob
-- Bob Grimeshttp://members.aol.com/bob5266/ http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/bobinjax/ http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788 Jacksonville, Florida Bob5266@aol.com robert.grimes@excite.com bobinjax@hotbot.com
Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in control...
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 18 2000 - 21:14:11 GMT