Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09482 (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 16:35:23 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000607095354.00e393c0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:31:20 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: Chuck vs Richard In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458B3@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_507079389==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 12:34 PM 6/7/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>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
Vincent,
I haven't been following all of the disputes going on here. But I do agree
with much of what you say.
Proposing hypotheses and theoretical paradigms that are not yet fully
tested is an important part of science. However, it is not nearly as easy
as it looks. One must take care that both the general theoretical framework
and the specific hypotheses within that framework agree with existing data
and observations where available. Otherwise, a "dead on arrival" hypothesis
may be proposed. When data and/or observations are scarce for the subject
of a hypothesis, it can remain a viable hypothesis unless new data or
observations are gathered that refute it. Keeping hypotheses and
theoretical frameworks as consistent as possible with existing data and
observation involves placing numerous constraints on the production of
theoretical frameworks and hypotheses. Those constraints are what make good
hypothesis and theoretical framework generation much harder work than the
final product makes them seem. It takes both talent and serious efforts at
developing that talent into real expertise. I think that many people do not
understand this, and expect that developing the memetic framework and
hypotheses should be as easy as it looks. It reminds me of how Olympic
athletes often make their feats look much easier than they really are,
which can leave new spectators relatively unimpressed while infuriating
would-be imitators.
One point of correction: Albert Einstein graduated with a physics degree
from the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zürich in 1900. He received his
doctorate in physics from the University of Zürich in 1905. What Einstein
lacked was a formal academic position from which to write his earliest
works: he only held a job in the Swiss patent office. (I don't think he
ever worked as a postmaster.)
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 - 16:36:09 BST