Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA07169 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:46:29 +0100 Message-ID: <393D8CE7.9335EA90@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:44:40 +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: Cui bono, Chuck? References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEMMEOAA.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:
> 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;
Richard - sorry, but in your last e-mail, you gave solid evidence that you would
not not even be able to recognize scientific method when you said straight out
that you are not a scientist.
> 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.
I wouldn't need to study scneitific method for decades to understand scientilfic
method better than someone who is admitedly not a scientist.
> 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.
I won't comment. It's simply not worth it. If you are convinced you understand
scientific method, that's the important thing - for you.
>
>
> [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!
Actually, I suspect a certain Microsoft attitude has rubbed off on you. It
seems like Bill and all FOBs think that because they have been so successful so
quickly, that they must be able to do just about anything. That, I suspect, is
one of the big reasons that Bill probably insisted on keeping a lawyer that
would simply do his bidding. That's also why he and Ballmer appointed somone
from MS who was a great programmer but knew nothing about accounting to head up
MSN accounting - and hemoraged millions. And you, with only a few books on
scientific method under your belt, believe I must be bullying you because you
absolutely must know at least as much as I do. I think it's wonderful that you
have the balls to try to bully me despite your lack of knowledge of the social
scineces because such confidence is the pinnacle of the American way of life.
Hail to America!!!
===============================================================
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 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 05:47:16 BST