RE: Cons and Facades

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 16 2000 - 20:10:43 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: Cons and Facades" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA10995 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:15:07 +0100
Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:10:43 -0400
x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <20000616191046.AAA8020@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.7]>
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Aaron Lynch made this comment not too long ago --

    >how vigorously the scientific community acts
    >to limit the prevalence and influence of cons and facades.

    And to paraphrase Tacitus, the integrity of a science is directly
    proportional to the number of experiments being conducted.

    Those dedicated to a pseudoscience are reticent, indeed, problematical,
    when it comes to independent verification of results. And one of the most
    common symptoms of a pseudoscience is just that: the self-imposed
    secrecy, often claimed for 'moral' reasons, surrounding these internally
    kept methods and results.

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 : Fri Jun 16 2000 - 20:15:48 BST