Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA17110 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <39384670.98299DDE@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:42:40 +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: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJKEGNEOAA.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
Richard Brodie wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>
> <<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.>>
>
> This is off topic, but I think Ebay fits that description very well.
This is NOT off topic. I have given you a way to falsify my hypothesis and you
say that's "off topic." After all, you have complained several times that my
explanations are circular. If you don't understand why the above is a way to
falsify or you aren't sure what falsifying means, please let me know.
Do you see the relationship between the fact that Ebay is having a tremendous
problem with fraud and that a lot of its efforts have already been directed at
confronting this issue and that if it isn't resolved it could sink Ebay? All of
this is directly related to what I am saying. Ebay must develop formal methods
for countering fraud. It has to be formal because, among other things, there is
no face to face interaction.
>
>
> . I don't think understanding the nature of science is so
> much about information as intelligence.
I can't agree with that. Intelligence is only one part of it. People go to grad
school for several years to get the feel for scientific method.
> [RB]
> > 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.>>
>
> Really! A valid physics will predict where a steel ball will land when
> propelled with a certain velocity! A valid genetics will predict the
> statistical distribution of a trait in offspring! Theories for understanding
> the past, while they may be intellectually satisfying, are not
> scientifically valuable unless they predict future results. As you quite
> perceptively pointed out in a previous post, those "future results" could
> actually be as-yet-undiscovered facts about the past.
>
As I have written a few times today, prediction is a small, but necessary part
of a good theory. Prediction by itself is worthless.
===============================================================
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 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 05:45:14 BST