Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA08644 (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 12:36:40 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458B3@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Chuck vs Richard Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:34:38 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I think everyone on this list needs to be clear as to what level we're
discussing these important issues.
At one level there is personal opinion, which we are all entitled to, but
also should expect to have challenged in a number of ways, especially in
relation to demonstrable specialist knowledge, but not in terms of personal
invective.
At another there is awareness of arguments in a given field. In this sense
many of us have offered references when requested, or even transcriptions of
articles, out of a perception of their usefulness to the discussion. This I
think is one of the best parts of such a list, and where possible is
something we should all do when requested, rather than fob people off. At
the end of the day, an argument that there's lots of reading but you can't
be bothered to tell the list what any of it is, is a specious argument. We
have a saying for this in the UK- 'all mouth and no trousers'.
And, at another, there is professional knowledge. Clearly everyone on this
list brings something different to it in this regard, with differing kinds
of expertise. Surely our aim is to learn from each other rather than
dismiss someone's arguments because of not accepting their qualifications,
or the field in which they work? Darwin was an established and respected
scientist who worked for many many years in the field before publishing his
theory of natural selection (and then only doing it when he did because of
Wallace), but Einstein was a postmaster who couldn't get a university job.
Both changed the face of science and society, and who today would bother to
criticise Darwin's delay or Einstein's lack of university pedigree?
What I'm appealing for here is that where possible we stick to the issues at
hand, and discuss things in a manner that avoid personal rancor.
As to the question of the scientific method, don't forget that this isn't
written in stone somewhere. The philosophy of science has some history of
its own, and alongside the likes of Popper there are those who conduct what
they regard as science (e.g. the 'relational' science of feminism). I'm not
saying they're right, but surely both the notion of explanatory power ('why
did these things happen?'), and predicitve power ('what's going to happen
next?') are both scientific questions, and are clearly linked. Underlying
those questions though, is the question of 'what is the process by which
things happen/happended/are going to happen?'. If you get the answer to
that question right then both the other questions can be answered.
I have, of course, gone on about process several times before on the list,
so perhaps we should also agree to try and avoid repetition of particular
points, unless we come across new material to add to the debate (such as
references to recent work on associated topics), otherwise we'll keep going
round in circles, and discussions can then easily descend into name-calling.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2000 12:44 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Cui bono, Chuck?
>
>
>
> 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 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 - 12:37:19 BST