Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA27004 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:17:01 GMT Message-Id: <4.1.20000319114340.00bf9100@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> X-Sender: dplante@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:17:12 -0800 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Dan Plante <dplante@home.com> Subject: Re: objections to memes In-Reply-To: <20000319175957.7141.qmail@nwcst312.netaddress.usa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I'm not familiar with Lakatos, but I think I understand the social dynamics
you're referring to. I do believe there exists the possibility of deriving at
least a statistical model of "what's going on in the head" in relation to
observed behaviour, and applying it in some statistically valid manner (a la
Mendel).
Under favourable circumstances, I imagine I would agree with your analysis of
the situation; however, what if it becomes clear to most on this list and
elsewhere, that this particular area is where "Memetics" really should be
applied to? Should we then abandon this surmised "most favourable avenue" for
fear of marginalization through peer ridicule? I understand the input / output
paradigm you speak of, the other side of the coin being that the (ad-hoc or
not) output exceeds the empirical input (as evidenced in the implosion, through
inbreeding of ideas, in the philosophical academe for decades).
Do you really think that "Memetics" could be viewed by the established
scientific community with more suspicion, contempt or even indifference, than
is shown today? I'm not suggesting we shouldn't "step gingerly", but I don't
think we should worry about doing much more than that. After all, it really
doesn't matter what "we" think any way. If someone even remotely familiar with
the field wants to write a book for the popular press outlining the emergence
of concious thought through microtubule reception of quantum flux solitons from
Tau Ceti, they're going to do it regardless, I imagine.
Dan
At 05:59 PM 19/03/00 +0000 Derek Gatherer wrote:
>Kenneth: (quoting Dan)
>
>Why do people who object to memes....etc?
>
>Derek:
>
>I don't object to the use of the word memes as a whole, merely to its use to
>describe unobservable mental things or events. Trying to pretend that it
>doesn't matter that the events are unobservable doesn't help matters, but
>actually makes them worse. Trying, as the internalists do, to bring in yet
>more dubious analogies from physics suggests a need to read Lakatos on what
>happens to research programmes when the ad hoc input exceeds the empirical
>output.
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
>
>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 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 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 20:17:11 GMT