Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA11452 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 8 May 2000 21:36:16 +0100 Message-ID: <00c501bfb99a$18edc100$03000004@r2z3h3> From: "Tyger" <void@internet-zahav.net.il> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C3688BB@NWTH-EXCHANGE> Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:36:45 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
hi Bruce and thanks for your comments,
I wish to relate to one central point that you mentioned namely the comment
that:
" Just because it shows up on written memos and papers does not make it
valid"
couple of years back when first dealing with memetics I would have agreed
with you, however in the times since then, I became more and more convinced
that in memetics that is excatly the validity required. the validation is
provided by the widespread of use and not any other scientific method. In
fact I believe that if you were to take the "Elvis lives" meme for example
and try to pinpoint it to the level of its accuracy you would probably find
that it is non-existent, when in fact it is probably only getting stronger
by the day (an interesting phenomena by itself), havent checked lately on
this meme....:-)
Memetics is a nascent science, no doubt. and it will take some time before
it becomes rooted and validated, that however does not change the fact that
cultural memes (as in fact all memes are by their very definition) keep on
spreading, regardless of their validity.
best,
eIe am ,:-)
Tyger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jones" <BruceJ@nwths.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> I (eie) see this argument as a null argument. I understand where it is
> coming from --- a need to add some scientific credence to the study of
memes
> as a semantic tool -- but do not feel this is YET a legitimate way to do
it.
>
> There needs to be a cause/effect study performed where data --concrete
data
> -- is gathered to show a definition has validity.
> Just because it shows up on written memos and papers does not make it
valid.
> If you took those papers and reports and analyzed the use of the term as
> being correct then compared it against the original definition and so-on
and
> so-forth, then maybe validation could take place.
>
> The next step, of course, would be to publish and present a paper that
> allows the rest of the memetic community to reproduce the results. If
> memetics (for language) is to become anything near a scientific discipline
> it must first be treated as a science and not a hobby!
>
> My $0.02
>
> Bruce Jones
>
===============================================================
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 : Mon May 08 2000 - 21:36:30 BST