Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA27852 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:38:23 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000619121720.03735df0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:35:38 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <20000618215648.AAA8615@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.74 ]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 05:56 PM 6/18/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >I don't think we should get too carried away with the infallibility of
> >scientific method.
>
>The method itself is about as infallible as anything can get. If one
>thing is false and the other true, it _will_ eliminate the false thing.
>But yes-
I agree that the method is indeed very strong, and is the best we can
expect from human society. I would have cited the cold fusion claim as an
excellent example of how quickly and effectively the scientific method can
work.
Long lists of examples of how well the method works do not, however, prove
that there are no circumstances or social forces that can subvert it for
long periods. The scientific community may reject certain claims, such as
various creation myths, only to have selection pressures cause a reduction
in the number of people accepting the scientific method on that topic and
an increase in the number of people rejecting science as legitimate on the
question of origins. The population is a larger and more powerful entity
than the scientific community.
There are also questions about the WAY that science rejects something. If
cons and facades propagate and persist in memetics, one way for the method
to work is by simply rejecting everything associated with "memetics" or the
word "meme." That is, if the method is mostly replaced by a contest of spin
and presentation within memetics, then the way memetics is done and the
products it yields will get memetics rejected by the scientific community
at large. The good science that was done in memetics would then become
widely disregarded, and would have to be re-invented and re-discovered by
disciplines that ignore memetics. Such a duplication of efforts would be a
major waste, but the method is not so finely tuned to avoiding waste.
<snip>
>I still shiver when I hear people claiming to have found a
>meme, much less engineering one....
The word "meme" has already been hyped so much that many people think that
a "meme" needs to be "found" by methods corresponding exactly to the
methods of molecular biology. My own view is that you cannot hope to "find"
a "meme," but can only hope to find the physical basis of a meme. Likewise,
you do not "find" a belief, but can only hope to find the physical basis of
a belief.
No one has ever "found" a "one" or a "zero" in static RAM, either. Ones and
zeros are mathematical constructs that do not exist in the ICs. Rather, the
physical basis for internal processes that correspond to our mathematical
constructs are all that one can find in the ICs. RAM and human memory do
not work the same way, but some of the frailties can be rendered more
similar. For instance, with a suitable ground fault and power supply noise,
the RAM can be set up so that it sometimes does not register signals
(called "data") sent to it, and sometimes does not retrieve the
"information" it contains.
One advantage to dropping the word "meme" in future works is that it would
relieve me of inappropriate expectations that I "find" the "meme." If I use
the words "idea" and "belief" instead, people will not expect me to "find"
them by methods of molecular genetics. One thing that I have learned is
that I cannot expect people to go read my technical works to find out what
I mean by the word "meme," or why it is inappropriate to ask me to "find" a
"meme." People just do not want to have to study the vast numbers of
definitions out there and then switch definitions with each author they read.
--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 : Mon Jun 19 2000 - 19:39:12 BST