Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA21136 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:02:57 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: To be or not to be: memetics a science? Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:35:01 -0500 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAIEKCCNAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <LAW2-F104tvqbUBkcEl0001a0b8@hotmail.com> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi, Grant,
I think if you will pull up my several emails to this list on the discipline
of memetics you will see quite a bit that is not covered by the fields of
"philosophers, biologists, cosmologists and neurologists." Thus, for me,
memetics does cover a domain that others don't, and does so usefully and
coherently.
But then, not everyone agrees with my definition of the field or its
workings. Alas, I cannot take any responsibility for Blackmore. <smile> I
don't believe it is possible to take everyone's definitions and reconcile
them, and so I haven't tried to do so. It is not surprising, then, that some
would say that everything in memetics is covered elsewhere, and others that
it isn't: this just reflects the particular definitions that people are
paying attention to, and those to which they don't.
Best regards,
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Grant Callaghan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:17 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: To be or not to be: memetics a science?
>
>
>
> >Hello, Grant, to be specific, what social sciences cover the areas
> >addressed
> >by memetics?
> >
> >Lawrence
> >
> To tell the truth, I still haven't been able to pin down exactly what
> memtics addresses. This list, for example, seems to address
> everything from
> science to newspaper stories but none of them in a way that seems any way
> different from the general discussion of these subjects. What
> areas are we
> addressing as suitable to the study of memetics? What do we say
> about them
> that is not taken from some other science, such as genetics or
> philosophy?
> We cam't even agree on a definition of the subject and what it
> encompasses,
> as near as I can see.
>
> If we're just going to back our arguements with the words of
> philosophers,
> biologists, cosmologists and neurologists, why not cut out the
> middle man?
> The arguements are stimulating, but neither Dawkins nor Darwin
> would refer
> to themselves as memeticists, I don't believe. Who are the
> memeticists who
> define the interests of memetics? Susan Blackmore leaps to mind, but her
> book seems to be more of a general survey of the literature than
> a defining
> treatise on the subject.
>
> Maybe I just don't get it, but so far all I've seen on the subject of
> memetics is tons of speculation and very little of the kind of rigor that
> categorizes and defines what is and is not memetic.'
>
> Grant
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
===============================================================
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 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 02:15:49 BST