Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA12826 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:57:35 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458B5@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Chuck vs Richard Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:55:35 +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
Thanks for the comments (and corrections on Einstein, I'd just remembered
the bit about him not being able to get a university job after graduating).
One of the problems of memetics seems to be that it is an effort at a
unified theory that applies to all sorts of contexts, which thus requires
relative levels of awareness and competence in lots of different fields.
What this list provides, I believe and hope, is awareness-raising across all
our different fields. Sometimes this will lead to epiphanies, sometimes to
exasperation, but I do think it's worthwhile.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Aaron Lynch
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2000 4:31 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Chuck vs Richard
>
> 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 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 10:58:13 BST