Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA05241 (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 18:20:13 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000615111043.01e84b40@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:15:39 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458C4@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
At 12:46 PM 6/15/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>I see what you're saying here Lawrence.
>
>I suppose partly, what I'm thinking of here is something which I think is
>central to the memetic process, and that is the general desire we all have
>to pass on 'the truth' whenever we think we know what that is. Of course,
>sometimes we don't want to tell people, but to those people we like, or are
>family we usually have a very strong urge to tell people 'the truth' (I
>guess this might be an inclusive fitness thing).
>
>This applies to all areas of life, so to give jsut two examples, you get
>religions with their missionaries, and you get evolutionary biology with
>their multitude of best-sellers. This latter group interest me very much.
>As a non-scientist, my knowledge of evolution comes mainly from the likes of
>Dawkins and Gould, and other writers, but it's recently struck me, with the
>success of Stephen Jones 'Almost Like A Whale' (his rewriting of the origin
>of species, which is called something very different in the US, but I can't
>remember what), just how many popular science books there are about how
>wonderful/fantastic/brilliant Darwin's theory of natural selection is.
>
>I suppose there are two elements to this. First, what is it about certain
>information that it can induce our notion of it being the truth? Second,
>what is it about 'the truth' that we generally feel a strong desire to pass
>it on to other people?
>
>Vincent
These are indeed profound questions, Vincent. In the language of my 1998
technical paper, I say that sameness and replication of ideas exist only
with respect to the abstraction system used to describe them. Perhaps more
generally, the truth of nearly any proposition depends upon the abstraction
system in which it is made. But assuming that two people are using
relatively similar abstraction systems, there are many reasons for wanting
to pass on what one views as "the truth." One might want to tell friends
and family that "the lake is over there" to receive reciprocal useful
information, to help related people survive, to help cooperation partners
survive, to help mates survive, etc.
The reasons for passing on information that one knows is "false" within the
abstraction system being used by the recipient are also interesting. They
are presumably the tools of making cons and facades.
My general question about whether the scientific method can be subverted by
a proliferation of cons and facades can also lead to the question of
whether there are particular fields in which this sort of thing is more
likely. In memetics, we have ideas of both symbiotic and pathogenic memes.
The former are viewed as helping their hosts in some way. The latter are
viewed as parasitic to their hosts or to society--though not necessarily to
their originators. The idea of the pathogenic meme, along with the idea of
memetic engineering can lead to a high rate of people deliberately
engineering memes intended to help the originator at the expense of
converts and/or society. One way to help oneself at the expense of others
is by way of cons and facades: pieces of misinformation that help the
originators of the misinformation but that harm those persuaded or some
larger entity such as society. If this sequence of thoughts and external
behaviors goes on more often in memetics than in other fields, it could
tend to subvert the processes of science more heavily for memetics than for
other fields such as physics.
Additionally, memetics might disproportionately attract people who view
themselves has having "bad attitudes." The attraction is that with
memetics, they can have "bad attitudes" combined with new powers. The "new
powers" might be mostly just new jargon for describing and justifying
long-established forms of deception and con artistry, but the promise of
"new powers" can itself be used as a selling point. Promises of "new
powers" is an old selling point and evangelism hook that can be found, for
instance, in evangelical religions that promise "answered prayers." An
influx of people with "bad attitudes" who are looking for "new powers" or
to project the illusion of "new powers" can affect the kinds of intentions
that become common in memetics, again creating a possible difference from
other fields. "Bad attitudes" need not establish a majority in memetics in
order to be noticed by professionals in other fields, too: a perceptibly
larger minority will do.
One mode of harm from all of this is that many scientists, business people,
policy makers, etc. who try to evaluate memetics as science will examine
the claims carefully enough to notice an excess of cons and facades,
leading them to form negative impressions of memetics. If the scientific
method is sufficiently subverted, it may also produce a lower quality
output. So the question of whether the scientific method can withstand any
and all subverting influences may be particularly important to memetics.
--Aaron Lynch
At 12:29 PM 6/15/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>I suppose one memetic argument would be that once the scientific method
>emerged as a successful and useful strategy for finding out about and thus
>altering our environment, memes either had to adapt to it or die out.
>
>What we've seen is both the resilience of certain kinds of memes
>(principally religious ones), and their adaptability. So, for example, we
>see believers aping scientific terminology etc. in creation "science" and
>intelligent design believers, and even their trying to use one science
>against another (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents natural
>selection from occuring, according to them). They have developed a kind of
>memetic camouflage, in much the same way that animals develop camouflage,
>and for the same purposes.
>
>We've also seen "scientific" methods being utilised in other fields as well,
>one in particular is documentary. When the documentary movement was founded
>there was a great belief amongst its pioneers (people like John Grierson)
>that documentary was a scientific medium, reflecting values expressed in the
>19th century towards the invention of photography and then the film camera,
>as being akin to the telescope or microscope- new scientific tools. So
>science has become a dominant framework within which very non-scientific
>memes have emerged/adapted to/hide within.
>
>The media through which science is communicated has become very important in
>this, of course. The days of the 17th/18th century letter writing and elite
>journals circulating between some of the most important thinkers of the age
>(in Europe anyway) has largely been supplanted by mass mediated
>communication aimed at the larger population, such that the science most
>people encounter is being shaped not by the scientific method but by the
>methods of journalists and documentarists. In this environment con science
>can arguably profit more readily. I remember seeing a documentary a while
>back about over-unity machines, those that their inventors claim can produce
>more energy than is put into them. I've also written about how
>documentaries on pseudo-science (such as alien abductions) demonstrate that
>documentary is far from scientific in its methods, but this doesn't stop
>such programmes being made.
>
>Vincent
These are good points too.
--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 15 2000 - 18:21:00 BST