Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA26771 (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 12:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458BD@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 12:49:32 +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
Didn't Einstein, for example, reject the idea of black holes even though his
theory predicted them?
In one sense, the value of great scientists is that they are simply slightly
less wrong than everyone else, which means everyone benefits in being ever
so slighty closer to being right, but of course it doesn't mean that they
are infallible.
The main reason I brought up Einstein was that one particular argument had
descended into the 'a' spent n years in the academy and 'b' is a college
drop out so 'a' must know better. My point was that nobody at the time of
Einstein's graduation thought he was smart enough to give him a university
job, but it didn't stop him becoming one of the most important physicists
ever.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Aaron Lynch
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 8:05 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
>
> At 12:10 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Bruce Jones wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Lynch [SMTP:aaron@mcs.net]
> > 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
> >
> [BJ] For a con to work you first have to have a recipient
> that is
> easily led. Second you have to have a master at
> manipulation. And third you have to have a popular
> misconception
> based on a lack of knowledge.
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> I am not sure you need any of these conditions. First, if no recipients
> are easily led, it just means that pulling off a con is not easy, not that
> it is impossible. Second, why do you need a "master of manipulation"
> rather than someone who is simply good enough at manipulation to fool some
> of the people some of the time? Third, popular misconceptions are not hard
> to find: they only need to be popular enough to support a con by way of
> some of the people falling for it some of the time.
>
>
>
>
> As I see it none of these exist in memetics.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> We really cannot seriously discuss whether cons have happened in memetics,
> because that would violate our list policy against "allegations." However,
> you have only been posting here for about 1/6 of the history of this list.
> Therefore, you may have missed the variety of suspicious products and
> claims that came up earlier, before it became apparent to many of us that
> public listserver discussions of specifics tended to degenerate into
> unproductive hot air. Bear in mind, however, that no one on this list
> needs to have fallen for a con in order for cons to have been perpetrated
> using "memetics" jargon. Perhaps no one on this list has bought the
> expensive "Speed Seduction" tapes and courses, for instance, but that does
> not mean that such a line of business has not been profitably run with the
> help of "memetics" jargon. We did have listerver discussions on "Speed
> Seduction," but they degenerated in a predictable manner. Once someone
> promotes "Speed Seduction," they of course have reason to defend it in
> order to defend their own credibility. Once someone criticizes it, they
> too have credibility reasons to stick to their guns. So such a discussion
> perhaps cannot be effectively handled by listserver debate. Yet to say
> that if no one even off this list has been fooled with pseudo-memetic
> jargon is equivalent to saying that "Speed Seduction," among other things,
> really was the product of honest science. Speed seduction is, IMO, just
> one item on a very long list of facades, cons, and attempts at such that I
> have observed in my 22 years in memetics. But I certainly will not attempt
> to again debate "Speed Seduction" or even mention the other cases of cons,
> facades, and attempts at such by listserver--not after learning how such a
> discussion tends to progress.
>
> I think that we should keep Wade's comments in mind. Perhaps all we can
> effectively suggest by listserver is that the possibility of facades and
> cons be recognized, along with the possibility that they may do real harm
> by competing with the products of honest work. That is not to say,
> however, that hard honest work never produces errors. We should also bear
> in mind that the discovery of an error does not amount to the
> identification of a con. Lack of agreement on many issues, as you say,
> likewise does not indicate a con, but is a normal state of scientific
> discourse. We also have many disagreements about what a "meme" is or how
> it is detected. These disagreements again do not indicate con jobs. (They
> might, however, indicate that the word "meme" is not as helpful in
> communicating as many of us once thought, but that is a tangential
> subject.)
>
> I agree with Wade that Einstein argued with his opponents. However, I am
> not convinced that those opponents included such a heavy load of con
> artists as in the thought experiment I suggested. The question remains of
> whether, or how quickly, the Method wins out over the false when the false
> includes a heavy load of cons and facades along with honest disagreements
> with and misunderstandings of real relativity.
>
>
>
>
> None on this list has
> indicated a propensity to being led ANYWHERE. Second none on this
> list has
> been able to manipulate any other person on this list. Third since
> we on
> this list seem to be the only ones interested in memetics the only
> thing we
> have is an understanding of a lack of cohesive knowledge about the
> subject.
>
>
>
> The only facade then is the person or persons that intimate a vast
> knowledge
> and/or understanding of the subject. <snip>
>
>
> You have to be careful about making such a statement. The apparent reason
> Vincent Campbell brought up Einstein was because Einstein was generally
> recognized as really having great knowledge and/or understanding of the
> subjects he covered. We also recognize that Einstein held such vast
> knowledge and understanding of relativity even before most of his
> colleagues acquired similar knowledge and understanding. Einstein did more
> than merely intimate that he held such knowledge, too: he definitely let
> the world know about it. But it was not a facade: it was the real product
> of talent and hard work. This does not, however, mean that Einstein
> thought himself too good to ever make a mistake or his theories too
> perfect to ever be revised. So if you really mean that anyone who
> intimates infallibility is putting on a facade, then I would agree with
> that.
>
> --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 14 2000 - 12:52:00 BST