Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA26592 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:09:19 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458BB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Isn't that the actual context in which most science exists- certainly today,
and particularly when paradigm-shifting theories emerge, whether it be
relativity, continental drift, or evolution by natural selection?
I agree that the principles involved in such processes are important to
explore, but I would argue that you can go back a long way in science and
still see new discoveries or paradigm-shifting theories emerging in a
complex context of competing interests (e.g. Galileo).
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Aaron Lynch
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 5:29 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Cons and Facades
>
> At 03:49 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote (in Imitation or
> transmission
> thread):
>
> <snip>
>
> >Because calling, as Aaron has mentioned, "paraphrasings of existing
> >marketing science", memetic engineering, is, just as he also said, the
> >facade of a con.
> >
> >- Wade
>
> Wade,
>
> To see the potential scientific harm of proliferating facades and cons,
> let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a bunch of people had shown up with
>
> various theories called "relativity" at around the same time as Einstein's
>
> work. Perhaps it was just easier to cook up a con than to do the hard work
>
> of developing a completely honest theory, so more people took up con
> artistry than real relativity. Perhaps it would be fed by a prevailing
> cultural or sub-cultural notion that an effective con was just as
> brilliant
> if not more so than the product of hard work. Suppose that the fake
> theories were expressed in very impressive-sounding jargon, but that most
> did little more than paraphrase Newtonian physics--the products of meager
> work slickly promoted. Suppose too that various fantastic and alluring
> claims were included, such as assertions that one could travel at a
> billion
> kilometers per second.
>
> How much attention would Einstein have received if he were outnumbered by
> the charlatans, who were far smoother and more aggressive as
> self-promoters? What if Einstein persisted in working much harder on
> physics than on self-promotion gimmicks? What if the con artists protected
>
> their interests by deflecting attention from serious theory? How many
> friends would Einstein have made if he dared criticize the con artists?
> Would he then have been seen as an ogre? Would he have been labeled a "con
>
> artist" himself? How would his theories have fared when the con artists
> went on the offensive and portrayed Einstein's work as silly,
> preposterous,
> disingenuous babble? How might he have defended his theories from
> assertions that they were "dangerous to relativity"?
>
> These are all meant as rhetorical questions rather than descriptions of
> the
> state of affairs in any existing discipline. But the principles involved
> might be worth considering in order to see how much damage could result
> from condoning cons and facades.
>
> --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 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 14 2000 - 12:10:01 BST