Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA23652 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:14:17 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [137.110.248.206] From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:08:12 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F403JURVG8NNdi00003e51@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2002 15:08:12.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB92C7D0:01C1E6EA] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
>Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:09:18 -0400
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:51:45 -0400
> > From: Joachim Maier <jakemaier@adelphia.net>
> >
> > Now I read just a couple of weeks ago that 2 scientific teams not only
> > slowed light down, but completely stopped light, and after a while
>released
> > it again.
>
>If I remember correctly, (and it is likely I don't) the effect was a
>change in the medium. And to add this to my point I was making about
>the importance of detail, the issue here was that light travels at the
>same speed in a vacuum. It changes speed in a different medium like
>fiber-optics. I thought (and again, I may be wrong here) that the
>experiment focused had the response of changing the medium itself
>which caused the slow-down at stoppage of light... where reversing the
>change cause the light to speed up again. Now, I may remember this
>from reading an article that had a different viewpoint of the results
>of the experiment, but again, I want to be careful because I'm unsure.
>
> > They seemed to have changed a fact into a concept, and back into a fact.
>:)
>
>Sounds like they changed the concept into a fact and back again. :-)
>
What actually happened was fact at every stage of the experiment. The
concept just guided the experiment. What was reported about the experiment
was also fact to the extent that it accurately reflected what happened. The
reported facts were memetic but the experiment itself was not. The word
fact is being used here to talk about two different things: both the
experiment and the report about the experiment. Both usagees are common and
one does not preclude the other. What the word "fact" means is the same as
with any other word: it depends on what it is being used to mean.
Grant ;)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
===============================================================
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 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 16:43:42 BST