Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA12897 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:01:11 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000624121125.00a62740@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:50:17 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <20000615184619.AAA7804@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.21 5]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_7307995==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:45 PM 6/15/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>Then again, as Twain said, the finest lie is a carefully measured portion
>of the truth.
>
>- Wade
Wade,
Do you think there is a subcurrent in memetics that regards "memetic
engineering" as including, among other things, a "new technology" of lying?
If so, this could be yet another way for memetic concepts to lead
indirectly to a greater frequency of cons and facades in memetics than in
other fields.
The idea of "memetic engineering" suggests, among other things, engineering
what others believe. Yet engineering other people's ideas to suite one's
own purposes is not the same thing as engineering other people's ideas to
suite their purposes. In particular, engineering what other people believe
to suite one's own purposes is not the same thing as influencing other
people's beliefs to become more accurate. "Inserting" a belief into another
person's mind based upon its usefulness to the "engineer" can easily amount
to little more than telling a lie. The only difference is that what was
once called "telling a lie" can now be called "engineering a meme" in the
new jargon. "Getting away with a lie" can be called "effective memetic
engineering" in the new jargon. An implicit ideology that "memetic
engineering is good" may thus become an ideology to the effect that "lies
and deceptions are good." This, of course, is an attractive rationalization
to anyone who already wants to lie prolifically. It does not, however,
indicate that there really is a new technology of lying. Compared to
historical masters of deception and common con artists, I see little to
suggest that degrading the accuracy of someone's beliefs with what publicly
passes for "memetic engineering" is any more effective than existing forms
of duplicity.
While it may not be more effective, the idea of "memetic engineering" may
implicitly encourage ambitions to lie on a grander scale. The focus of
memetics is typically on the population level, which can be taken as
suggesting that the most "successfully engineered" misbeliefs (lies) are
the ones that "infect" the most people. The idea of "memetic engineering"
may thus play a role in causing both more frequent lying in memetics, as
well as lying to larger numbers of people. That would tend to exacerbate
the Barnum-like atmosphere to which you alluded earlier.
Another contributing source of ideas in all of this may be the concept of
engineering a computer virus. Here again, information is manipulated to
suite the purposes of the engineer, often at the expense of unsuspecting
others. As with "successfully engineered" viral memes, a "successfully
engineered" computer virus is often implicitly or explicitly taken to be
one that spreads very widely.
"Engineering" a strategic lie that becomes widespread can be very effective
in business and politics, but my general impression is that it tends to
subvert the scientific Method while at the same time damaging the
reputation of a scientific discipline with a Barnum-like atmosphere. As you
pointed out, there are no curtains in science. So any idea being
disseminated in science is taken to be offered as a target for honest
skeptical and honest critical evaluation.
Another consequence of having many people view the "engineering" of lies as
an attractive alternative option to doing honest work, is that it can
reduce the amount of honest work being done. People can decide that it is
simply easier to "engineer" cons and facades than to do honest work. So in
addition to causing more cons, facades, and lies for the scientific
community to detect, the "engineered lies" idea may reduce the amount of
honest work available for the scientific community to detect.
Dishonest criticism of honest works may further complicate the picture, by
appearing to be "scientific discourse" while in fact being "engineered" to
serve purposes other than scientific inquiry and scientific review.
Dishonest criticism can even be used to support and camouflage cons,
facades, and large-scale lies -- by serving a "best defense is a good
offense" strategy for cons, facades, and large-scale lies. So honest work
can be not only circumvented by resorting to dishonest claims, but honest
work can also come under dishonest attack when it competes with dishonest
claims. This again tends to reduce the relative proportion of honest work
to "engineered lies" that the scientific community detects, again leading
to worse evaluations of memetics by the scientific community. The idea of
"engineered lies" may thus be seen as having a parasitic relationship to
honest science.
--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 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 18:01:57 BST