Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03098 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:35:45 +0100 From: <m.similaroglu@talk21.com> X-Mailer: BT talk21 Guppy - 2nd Generation Mailer (www.talk21.com) To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk X-Talk21Ref: none Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:34:31 BST Subject: RE:Cons and Facades Message-Id: <20000615103254.TYIV5352.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@t21mtaV-lrs> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
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 "memetics" at around the same time as Memestein'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 memetics. 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 Newtdawkian memetics--the products of meager
work slickly promoted. Suppose too that various fantastic and alluring
claims were included, such as assertions that one could seduce at a billion
women per second.
How much attention would Memestein have received if he were outnumbered by
the charlatans, who were far smoother and more aggressive as
self-promoters? What if Memestein 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 Memestein 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 Memestein's work as silly, preposterous,
disingenuous babble? How might he have defended his theories from
assertions that they were "retarding the progress of memetics"?
These are all meant as rhetorical questions rather than descriptions of the
state of affairs in any existing discipline (except of course memetics). But the principles involved
might be worth considering in order to see how much amusement could result
from such a silly thought contagion (? surely 'experiment' - Ed.).
--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com
===============================================================
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 15 2000 - 11:36:37 BST