Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA12435 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 9 May 2000 02:01:18 +0100 Message-ID: <39171DB5.B989182F@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:04:05 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics References: <3915AEB4.9BE0796F@mediaone.net> <00050820415301.00952@faichney> <3916F62D.CD85DDFD@mediaone.net> <010701bfb93f$93f13540$6a286bd4@install> 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
Oliver Kullman wrote:
>
> Actually she doesn't say these things are useless, she says we don't need
> them (it's a little different):
> Blackmore The Meme Machine page: 28:
> "So why do we have fax machines? Why Coca-Cola cans and wheelybins? Why
> Windows 98 and felt-tip pens. I want answers to these specific questions.
> "because we want them" is not a sufficient answer. "Because we need them" is
> clearly untrue. <..> In later chapters I shall explain how a memetic
> approach can help."
As you say, " It's a little different", and I agree, with the emphasis on
little. After all - no two words ever have the same meaning. But she IS saying
we don't need them, which is still as strange as saying they are useless. Also,
how do you interpret "'because we want them' is not a sufficient answer"? If she
has no idea of why people need faxes and computer operating systems, then at the
very least how well does she understand human behavior? Did she ever ask them
why they wanted them? Or did she ever ask herself why she uses them?
Frankly, I judge it to be more than just a question of elementary observational
competence. She is presumably a person that has been trained to use words
precisely in academic contexts, and that's why she has her position. Writing
such stuff makes me seriously doubt if she is interested at all in science. She
may have once been interested, but it looks to me like she has veered off into
some pretty intense fantasy.
I might have let it pass as a joke, however, if I didn't find the book liberally
peppered with many other bizarre statements. Another astounding example in a
much later chapter is her use of the evolutionary term benefit to mean
relaxation for the organism. Trees, she says, must compete with weeds at first
to grow, so they grow fast to get up above the weeds. But being above the weeds
isn't really a benefit because each tree still has to compete with other trees!
So the trees don't even benefit, only the genes, presumably because the trees
die. I guess she doesn't know that the genes of that tree also die. Nor does she
know that relaxation from competition has nothing to do with the concept of
benefit. This is a woman who claims to be an evolutionary psychologist.
Again, however, this is just one other example that sticks in my mind. She never
justifies anything she says, not even with a thin veneer of scientific method.
Why, for example, does she say that there are many more memes than there are
homes for memes? If memes originate in brains, which is the only place I can
imagine them originating, then they already have a home when they are born! Do
other brains want to use the meme? It depends on how useful they are. It's both
as simple and complex as that. If I invent the meme "cetlle", I know from the
start it won't get anywhere unless I am retarded. But she wants to talk about
homes and memes and shortage of space and how this is the primary reason our
brains are so big. In this regard, she does not even seriously examine some of
the other competing theories on this which are quite credible. If I were writing
a book that claimed to have major implications, I would do my homework, and she
should know by now in her career that she should do the same. It looks to me
like she has chosen to ignore science in her quest for truth -- which is fine,
but it should not be mistaken for science.
>
> Oliver Kullman
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue May 09 2000 - 02:01:35 BST