Re: objections to "memes"

From: Aaron Lynch (aaron@mcs.net)
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 20:18:48 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Re:Complete Thoughts"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA27037 (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 20:21:04 GMT
    Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000319141848.007656f8@popmail.mcs.net>
    X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:18:48 -0600
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
    Subject: Re: objections to "memes"
    In-Reply-To: <38D3F12F.F01F60CE@fcol.com>
    References: <20000317205517.17364.qmail@nw175.netaddress.usa.net> <3.0.1.32.20000318130035.011d943c@popmail.mcs.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    At 04:12 PM 3/18/00 -0500, Robert G. Grimes wrote:
    >
    >
    >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

    Thanks, Bob.

    Nice to know it has "flavor," if not quite "charm." (Do I hear
    "strangeness"?...)

    I should point out that I have also been discussing the terminology problem
    without using analogies to other sciences since at least 1997. Many people
    who have broad science educations will have learned their standards of
    terminological clarity from their overall exposure to sciences. Thus it
    makes sense to point out why "meme" has run into more trouble than new
    terms introduced to express new theories in other fields. Both quantum
    chromodynamics and the word "quark" were far more widely accepted among
    both scientists and lay people when "quark" as a particle name was itself
    24 years old back in 1987.

    I should also point out that the terminology situation is really a bit
    worse that my 3/18/2000 post suggests. Suppose that in addition to the
    various definitions of "quark" in terms of intra-hadron particles, hadronic
    behaviors, and hadronic artifacts, there were also varieties of meanings
    within each of those categories. For instance, suppose we also had people
    asserting that gluons, forces, charges, etc. are also "quarks" within
    hadrons. Yet another layer of terminological mess.

    --Aaron Lynch

    ===============================================================
    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 - 20:21:13 GMT