RE:Memes and sexuality

From: Derek Gatherer (derek-gatherer@usa.net)
Date: Thu Jul 20 2000 - 08:59:22 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA26669 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:01:18 +0100
    Message-ID: <20000720075922.23156.qmail@nwcst323.netaddress.usa.net>
    Date: 20 Jul 00 08:59:22 BST
    From: Derek Gatherer <derek-gatherer@usa.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: RE:Memes and sexuality
    X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34FM1.5A.01A)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    This thread is still drifting off on an imaginary tangent, rather reminiscent
    of the recent Cons and Facades thread......

    Derek Freeman has made many cogent criticisms of Mead's work. These have been
    independently backed up to a large extent by researchers at the University of
    Samoa, and by Martin Orans. Freeman is not a 'bully' or a 'cretin' or any of
    the other abusive things that have been said about him here. True, not
    everybody agrees with everything he has said. But independent researchers
    have concluded that he is substantially correct in his criticisms. Freeman
    does not have to issue any 'long list of retractions' or 'stop promoting his
    work' or any of the other things that have been suggested in this thread.
    Anyone who wants to follow the real controversy, can find a useful list of
    references at:

    http://www.angelfire.com/sk/jrlaurie/meadmar2.html

    Fortunately in memetics there is no question of any such controversy. Ours is
    a field in which bad work is honestly criticised. It would be very wrong,
    after all, to leave such work uncriticised, as many people might be fooled by
    it. Indeed, I see it as my duty as a scientist to make sure that shoddy work
    is given a good seeing to, and I hope I will always continue to do so. If my
    criticisms serve the purpose of discrediting bad work, then I have done a good
    job.

    Maybe, like Freeman, I will be the subject of a Skeptical Inquirer article
    suggesting that my criticisms were actually gross misrepresentations. That
    would be most amusing, and I look forward to that honour. I recommend that
    anybody who thinks I am guilty of such things should immediately set about
    contacting that journal.

    Derek 'the Freeman of memetics' Gatherer

    PS: Okay, bad joke, but come on... what is this thread about? I think it's a
    bit obvious.....

    ____________________________________________________________________
    Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

    ===============================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 Jul 20 2000 - 09:02:08 BST