Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA03245 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:38:25 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000619230121.03729ad0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:35:26 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <20000616191046.AAA8020@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.7] > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 03:10 PM 6/16/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>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.
Wade,
I might add that the number of experiments (and other empirical studies)
being conducted is directly proportional to the reputation the science has
among research grant makers. If there is one thing that grant makers in
general and research grant makers in particular want from their recipients
it is both the appearance and reality of integrity. Most grant makers do
not want to invest millions of dollars of research money if they sense that
cons and facades are present: they simply do not want to take any more risk
of being swindled than they have to. There are many other aspects to
integrity than simply the number of experiments under way. Falsifications
of credentials and data, along with other cons and facades certainly count
against the reality and appearance of integrity. In something of a vicious
cycle, these can then exacerbate a scarcity of empirical research funding,
which in turn also undermines the forces working for integrity and the
image of integrity projected to research grant makers.
The reason I say "and other empirical studies" above is that memetics may,
to some extent, face circumstances resembling those of astronomy. Astronomy
deals with large-scale phenomena for which experimental manipulations are
usually difficult. Population level processes may also fit that description
to some extent. There are, however, various specific mechanisms, such as
differential recall of "vivid" versus "bland" stories, that can be
investigated on a smaller scale. Also, much as astronomy can be empirically
investigated by looking at "natural experiments," population memetic
phenomena can likewise be investigated by measuring propagation parameters
and using quantitative analysis to predict prevalences versus time.
As mentioned previously, honest disagreement on many kinds of issues does
not itself indicate a con, but is a normal part of scientific discourse. In
particular, we should not all expect to agree on how best to proceed with
experimental and empirical work, or with the interpretation of results.
--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 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 05:39:13 BST