Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA20923 (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 22:17:13 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:15:02 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEJHEOAA.richard@brodietech.com> 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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39384670.98299DDE@mediaone.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chuck wrote:
> 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.>>
[RB]
> 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.">>
Your hypothesis is off topic because it isn't memetics and this is a
memetics list.
<< 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.>>
Kind of odd for you to say that here after I have just found a neat
counterexample.
<<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.>>
Yep. And this is only the start. Memetic evolution is growing farther and
farther from our genetic "survival machines." Nice try at begging the
question but my counterexample remains and your theory is falsified.
[RB]
> . 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.>>
People go to grad school for years and STILL don't get a feel for the
scientific method.
<<As I have written a few times today, prediction is a small, but necessary
part
of a good theory. Prediction by itself is worthless.>>
OK. You take an explanation of the stock market that doesn't predict, and
I'll take an accurate prediction of the stock market that doesn't explain.
We'll see which one is worth more. Game?
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
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 - 22:17:49 BST