Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA06013 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:04:48 GMT X-Sender: unicorn@pop.greenepa.net Message-Id: <p04320401b896d22476a3@[192.168.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <200202180511.g1I5BE206558@mail23.bigmailbox.com> References: <200202180511.g1I5BE206558@mail23.bigmailbox.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:59:50 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <unicorn@greenepa.net> Subject: RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Not at all. It simply gives a high truth value to certain propositions.
>>Faith is not specific to irrational religious beliefs. Wade, for instance,
>>has supreme faith in empiricism and is unwilling to consider models that
>>lack empirical testability. I would guess he is happy with his faith and the
>>results it produces in his life.
>>
Joe said:
>Richard, in his memetically leveling mindset, has filtered the
>telling difference between knowledge and faith, that is, the
>presence or absence of testable evidence (that is, repeatable under
>controlled conditions), according to the verification principle, for
>proferred contentions. In fact, since empirical testing routinely
>produces useful results as to what will and will not work, and thus
>ceaselessly proves itself to be veridical to a high degree of
>probability (unlike faith, which can only manifest in the absence of
>Popperian falsifiability/verifiability), the evidence for its
>functional efficacy is ubiquitous.
Yes, but I think Richard has a point. Empiricism is *just one of
many* different ways of experiencing the world. Even those who
ascribe to it do so "imperfectly" - we all lie to each other and to
ourselves. (Freud was onto something with his anxiety/defense
mechanisms formulation. But that's another post.) I don't think
that Richard is unaware of the distinction that you point out - he is
just saying that the measure of fitness of any judgement mechanism is
*not* it's verifiability. It is whether or not it allows it's
adopter (as an individual or as a culture) to function effectively
enough to reproduce.
Where I lived in Africa, the people believed that lightning was
"called down" on you by people you had pissed off (or rather by the
witch doctor who was *paid* by the people you had pissed off. - a
sort of lightning-for-hire scenario). While this may not have led to
an invention of the lightning rod, it certainly made people a little
more cautious and careful around each other - which probably
strengthened social bonds/community. So it may not have been
verifiable in the sense that you are talking about, but it had it's
pay offs.
frankie
===============================================================
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 Feb 18 2002 - 16:36:45 GMT