Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA06006 (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 23:24:59 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:22:59 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJOENDEOAA.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: <39397EB0.A1D2A418@mediaone.net> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chuck wrote:
> <<This is NOT off topic. I have given you a way to falsify my hypothesis
and
> you
> say that's "off topic.">>
>
[RB]
> Your hypothesis is off topic because it isn't memetics and this is a
> memetics list.
<<I thought that any behavior was a meme and therefore on topic for this
list.>>
There are people who claim that behaviors are memes. Dawkins, Dennett,
Brodie and others do not classify them as such, however. The definition that
works for me is this: A meme is a piece of information in a mind whose
existence influences events such that more copies of itself get created in
other minds.
<<Ebay is not a counter example. Ebay is trying to build a capacity for a
very
limited virtual reputation through formal methods. I am referring to the
informal methods of reputation that assess the person far more broadly than
strictly formal methods.>>
I think it's a fascinating topic to study, actually. What is the relevance
to memetics?
> People go to grad school for years and STILL don't get a feel for the
> scientific method.
>
<<Taking the worst example of anything and projecting it may be good
rhetoric, but
it doesn't prove the point you want to prove. No one doubts that stupid
people
can get degrees.>>
Nor do they doubt that geniuses can live without them.
[CP]
> <<As I have written a few times today, prediction is a small, but
necessary
> part
> of a good theory. Prediction by itself is worthless.>>
>
[RB]
> 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?
<<I repeat - time to read about scientific method.>>
I'm always willing to be wrong. But unless you can come up with a clear
statement of exactly what it is about the scientific method you think I
don't understand I'll assume you're full of hot air.
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 - 23:25:37 BST