Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA29237 (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 20:49:50 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000614140559.01dcdc90@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:45:46 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458BD@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I must have missed the posts in which years spent in the academy were used
to assert that one person knows more than another. In my view, talent and
hard work combined tend to produce expertise, but even that is only a
statistical connection. An academy is not essential as the place for doing
the work, as Darwin clearly showed. And hard work plus talent still do not
guarantee infallibility. Einstien's reaction to quantum mechanics is often
taken as evidence of that. Meanwhile, a whole range of theories may be
modified by such developments as superstring or membrane theory.
So I guess I am shifting the purpose for discussing Einstein. My thought
experiment raises the question of when, whether, how, and for how long the
scientific method ("the Method" as Wade put it) might be subverted. Is the
Method infinitely robust, or is it only as good as the society in which it
is used, or somewhere in between? A proliferation of cons and facades might
be just one of the ways the Method can be subverted, too. As I argued
earlier, cultural natural selection might be working against the teaching
of evolution in USA schools, and affecting the actions of Congress.
Our weakness for simplification might also work against the Method. One
might, as Wade said, use the ability to explain something to a 9 year old
child as a test for whether you really know something. However, I do not
see reality as having been so conveniently tailored to fit the limitations
of the human brain, regardless of one's age. Even if we all use the Baby
Einstein (tm) learning system, the 9 year old might still have problems
with general relativity, for instance. And why stay with 9 year old humans,
and not go to 9 year old chimpanzees?
--Aaron Lynch
At 12:49 PM 6/14/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>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
===============================================================
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 - 20:50:43 BST