RE: Cui bono, Chuck?

From: Richard Brodie (richard@brodietech.com)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2000 - 20:17:56 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Jabbering !" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05270 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:20:00 +0100
From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Cui bono, Chuck?
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:17:56 -0700
Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEMMEOAA.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)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <39393704.EF9649EA@mediaone.net>
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    More dialog with Chuck:

    [RB]
    > Earlier in this same message you said that predictive ability was
    necessary
    > (but not sufficient) for a sound theory. Now you contradict yourself by
    > saying that explanatory advantage is adequate. I'll assume you mean both.

    [CP]
    <<You shouldn't assume that at all. My above quote refers to "explanatory
    advantage" -- which is not equivalent to predictive ability although it
    includes
    it. Included in that criterion is its coherence or lack thereof with
    previous
    theoretical formulations and plausibility tests. Richard - I'm going to pull
    an
    Aaron on you. There are books out there on this. What you read at MS simply
    was
    not enough, and I'm not here to recreate in e-mail that which you can pick
    up
    much more efficiently by reading previous works. I think Britannica on the
    web
    should have some interesting stuff on scientific method.>>

    I've seen nothing in your writing to indicate that you have a superior
    understanding of the scientific method to me; in fact, just the reverse. I
    think you engage in a bullying tactic, implying that you have studied some
    subject for decades and that anyone who hopes to know as much as you must do
    the same. For your edification see the following succinct explanation of the
    scientific method from the sci.skeptic FAQ:
    http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

    I'd be interested to see if you think it is wrong as well.

    [RB]
    > I'm not a scientist. I'm a college dropout. I applaud your skepticism.
    > However, your ridicule of memetics is far from the open-mindedness I would
    > expect from a skeptic. I would expect you to be chomping at the bit to
    > understand the cool theory that all these smart people seem to espouse but
    > you don't get.

    <<I am only closed minded to anything that falsely claims to be scientific.
    If you
    aren't a scientist, then how can you claim you are applying science? That
    doesn't make any sense to me.>>

    I'm an amazing guy, Chuck. I can also type without being a typist, carry
    letters without being a letter carrier, and clean my bathroom without being
    a janitor!

    [RB]
    > Which particular scientific paradigm for predicting and engineering the
    > future of culture did you have in mind? If I can, I'll be happy to point
    out
    > where it's wrong.

    <<You can't do that until you understand the nature of adequate scientific
    theory.>>

    Translation: you have no idea.

    <<I'm sorry. My mistake. The study's main subject was romantic love, but I
    derived
    from my reseach stuff on reputation. Do a search on reputation.>>

    [CP]
    > <<By the same process by which you and I argue about the nature of human
    > behavior.
    > We look at problems in our environment and try to figure out how to
    realize
    > our
    > goals when we run into obstacles. Is that so mysterious? Are you saying
    you
    > yourself don't do that every day to get through life?>>
    >
    [RB]
    > No, I wouldn't describe the nature of my everyday life that way. I would
    > describe it as playing most of the time.

    <<I was afraid of that. The lifestyle of S. Cal is not necessarily conducive
    to...
    I won't go there!>>

    People all over the world have tons of leisure time, not just here in the
    place with the best weather. Culture evolves memetically to fill that
    available time.

    [RB]
    > You predicted viral marketing? I'm impressed! I'd love to see where you
    > predicted it. Was it natural resource exhaustion that caused it, or
    romantic
    > love?

    <<To see what other people were saying at the same time, you might try
    readingt
    the Columbia Journalism Review when you aren't off playing somewhere.>>

    Translation: No, Chuck didn't predict viral marketing.

    [RB]
    > Please name these lots of people and cite their theories. Oh darn. I bet
    you
    > don't have time.

    <<Amazing that you should predict my response! Congrats. Go to any library -
    they
    are now computerized and you can do searches very fast for exactly these
    subjects. It's just too spread out for me to do the work for you.>>

    You haven't convinced me there is any substance to your claims.

    Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
    http://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 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 20:20:43 BST