Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA05848 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 25 May 2000 15:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <392CECD3.E53E6CA4@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:05:24 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival" References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJAEOOENAA.richard@brodietech.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
Wrong. My theory is Darwinian. (If it still isn't clear by now, I can't make it
any more clear) I have already posted how Darwinian theory can be falsified -
and it so far hasn't in the last 150 years. The way to falsify this particular
set of facts is to find a society now or in the past where reputation plays the
key role in the establishment of trust associated with a geographically mobile
population.
Richard Brodie wrote:
> You aren't giving an explanation, merely a description. Your theory doesn't
> predict anything. There are an infinity of ways to construct complex models
> to understand the past.
Yes there is. Historians do it all the time. The models come from folk science
and they aren't very good because they don't even predict much in the past.
Question: where do you get your information on the nature of science? Did
Microsoft provide any courses on the subject while you were there?
> The only way to know what is scientifically valid is
> to successfully predict the future.
Really? On what level? If you mean specific events, of course not; if you mean
the general form of the future will still conform to Darwininian laws, it does.
>
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
>
> "Wade T.Smith" wrote:
>
> > On 05/24/00 06:49, Vincent Campbell said this-
> >
> > >(The point about seppuku, was that this is a ritual behaviour that has
> > >persisted for many generations explicitly involving suicide- how do you
> > >explain it?)
> >
> > Perhaps with the same breath that explains Clinton's _not_ performing
> > such a ceremony in the face of precisely a situation in which the
> > nipponese culture would demand it.
>
> >
> > Which is to say, there is no simple explanation for the strength of a
> > culture or the directions is allows.
> >
>
> You missed my point, Wade. The difference is to what extent reputation plays
> a role in each society because of ecological conditions. In this country, if
> you get a bad reputation in one town, you can simply move to another town or
> state, set up residence by showing your bank account, and start anew. Ask
> any European who has moved here, and they will tell you they are astonished
> by this -- and usually love it (although perhaps academics are out of the
> loop). In a land short country like Japan where people must stay in one
> place, they don't have that option. That is why the stain generally lasts
> and is far more serious than here.
>
> Actually, I should substitute the word land for resources for modern
> industrial societies. I have tested this out cross culturally and it has
> works every time. This continuum seems to work in the orient also as well
> as within the US. I know of no people that relies less on reputation to
> evaluate their countrymen, and it is a defining characteristic of our
> mentality.
>
> And, yes there are explanations for the strength of *every* cultural traits
> because the culture of a people is its tool kit for living, not simply a
> pretty thing to wear or eat. Most social scientists simply assume there are
> no explanations for certain things and don't try to investigate any further.
> Just about everyone on this listserv, for example, believes this as a matter
> of faith. The most recent such investigator is Fukuyama who states outright
> that 20% of culture is free variation, a figure he pulls out of the air
> without being challenged.
>
> >
> > - Wade
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 : Thu May 25 2000 - 15:08:11 BST