Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA16470 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:18:35 GMT Message-ID: <3C945734.E95D4209@clara.co.uk> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:43:32 +0000 From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> Organization: University of London X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence References: <F42tNV1HINcKPey7ZyZ0001f9cf@hotmail.com> 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
Scott Chase wrote:
> >From: <AaronLynch@aol.com>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
> >Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:17:30 EST
> >
> >In a message dated 3/16/2002 11:45:46 AM Central Standard
> >Time, Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >  Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> > >
> > >  >  Good morning, everyone,From another list...
> > >  >
> > >  >      -----Original Message-----
> > >  >      From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > >  >      [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of nargess
> > >  >      sabeti
> > >  >      Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:41 AM
> > >  >      To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > >  >      Subject: Re: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
> > >  >
> > >  >        Glenn Bradford <gmbbradford@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  >           Richard Dawkins, in a Forbes article written three
> > >  >           years ago, speaks his
> > >  >           mind on the notion, popularized by Fritjof Capra
> > >  >           and others, that the
> > >  >           science of quantum mechanics is converging with
> > >  >           religious mysticism.
> > >  >
> > >  >           DAWKINS:
> > >  >           [A] kind of marriage has been alleged between
> > >  >           modern physics and
> > >  >           Eastern mysticism. The argument goes as follows:
> > >  >           Quantum mechanics, that
> > >  >           brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern
> > >  >           science, is deeply mysterious
> > >  >           and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have
> > >  >           always been deeply
> > >  >           mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore,
> > >  >           Eastern mystics must have
> > >  >           been talking about quantum theory all along.
> > >  >
> > >  >           Similar mileage is made of Heisenberg's
> > >  >           uncertainty principle ("Aren't we all,
> > >  >           in a very real sense, uncertain?"), fuzzy logic
> > >  >           ("Yes, it's okay for you to be fuzzy,
> > >  >           too"), chaos and complexity theory (the butterfly
> > >  >           effect, the Platonic, hidden
> > >  >           beauty of the Mandelbrot Set--you name it,
> > >  >           somebody has mysticized it and!
> > >  >           turned it into dollars). You can buy any number of
> > >  >           books on "quantum
> > >  >           healing," not to mention quantum psychology,
> > >  >           quantum responsibility,
> > >  >           quantum morality, quantum immortality, and quantum
> > >  >           theology. I haven't
> > >  >           found a book on quantum feminism, quantum
> > >  >           financial management, or
> > >  >           Afro-quantum theory, but give it time.
> > >  >
> > >  >           The whole dippy business is ably exposed by the
> > >  >           physicist Victor Stenger in
> > >  >           his book, The Unconscious Quantum, from which the
> > >  >           following gem is taken.
> > >  >           In a lecture on "Afrocentric healing," the
> > >  >           psychiatrist Patricia Newton said that
> > >  >           traditional healers "are able to tap that other
> > >  >           realm of negative entropy--that
> > >  >           superquantum velocity and frequency of
> > >  >           electromagnetic energy--and bring
> > >  >           them as conduits down to our level. It's not
> > >  >           magic. It's not mumbo jumbo. You
> > >  >           will see the dawn of the 21st century, the new
> > >  >           medical quantum physics really
> > >  >           distributing these energies and what they are
> > >  >           doing."
> > >  >
> > >  >           Sorry, but mumbo jumbo is ! precisely what it is.
> > >  >           Not African mumbo jumbo but
> > >  >           pseudosc! ientific mumbo jumbo, down to the
> > >  >           trademark misuse of the word
> > >  >           energy. It is also religion, masquerading as
> > >  >           science in a cloying love
> > >  >           feast of bogus convergence.
> > >  >           --
> >
> >Hi Douglas.
> >
> >My earlier use of the phrase "the ineffable Quantum of being"
> >a few months ago was also in reference to some of the mystical
> >interpretations of quantum mechanics.
> >
> > >  and memetics is a science?
> >
> >Just suppose that Eastern mysticism got attached to quantum
> >physics in the early days, so that a substantial fraction of
> >the physicists reading their first quantum physics books were
> >asked to swallow a lot of mysticism. The word "quantum"
> >would have gained a very bad reputation among serious
> >physicists.
> >
> > >  sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
> >
> >Perhaps this is the old strategy of the best defense
> >being a good offense.
> >
> >
> Dawkins is right on the money. "Quantum" seems to be a popular adjective to
> attach to a lot of goofy ideas making them more trendy in pop culture. It's
> like a vague allusion to QM has hybridized with various kooky pet theories.
The migration of a word from a narrow scientific context to a much wider
one would seem to be a
perfect subject for memetics.  One one extreme, the physicists; one the
other,
the 'kooky pet theories'.
Question 1: describe the migration (or expansion) of the use of
"quantum."
Question 2: explain the migration
In many of the social sciences there is a tension in the discipline
between its prescriptive and descriptive urges.  It's internal politics,
perhaps.  Linguistics is a good
example.  (and maybe the positive-natural law dichotomy in legal
theory.) Prescriptivism is not much in fashion these days.  But
fashions, by definition, change. 
Dawkins sounds as if he comes from a prescriptivist school of memetics.
It's a bit like a lab scientist criticising germs because they are bad.
===============================================================
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 17 2002 - 09:29:11 GMT