Memetics a pseudoscience?

From: E.M.Recio (n2wog@usa.net)
Date: Tue Jul 25 2000 - 07:19:33 BST

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "chimps at Blair Drummond"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA02919 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:21:54 +0100
    Message-ID: <20000725061933.21135.qmail@awcst094.netaddress.usa.net>
    Date: 25 Jul 00 02:19:33 EDT
    From: "E.M.Recio" <n2wog@usa.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Memetics a pseudoscience?
    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
    

    Hello all!

    I just have a quick thing to remark on as far as the progress of memetics is
    concerned. After reading Michael Ruse's paper ``Creation-Science Is Not
    Science'' he brought up a few points (derived from Thomas Kuhn presumably)
    defining Science (with a captial `s')

    What strikes me most odd is whether or not memetics would fall into
    pseudoscience range. However, even the demarcation of what /is/ science is
    arguable.

    The five points brought up by Ruse as to the ``characteristic features'' of
    what we call science today are: explanatory, predictions, testability,
    confirmations, falsifications, and most importantly (IMO) tentativeness. If
    you are familiar with these characteristics of science (a la Ruse,) then you
    can skip to the bottom.

    A viable explanation is created when natural laws are established. Religious
    beliefs often allow for events to happen that defy natural laws. For example,
    some may call these events miracles; or other events like Catholicism's
    transubstantiation. Without the obedience of natural law, religion cannot
    beconsidered a science per se.

    Predictions may then be established based on the viable explanations
    presented. With natural laws nicely established, and an explanation as to what
    exactly happened, then one may go on a limb and predict what will happen with
    certainty. In addition to what will happen, you can then predict what has
    happened (in the past.)

    The previously made predictions could now be tested which is the most
    important front in science. This is the ability for the scientific community
    to verify the predictions and explanations for themselves. This allows for
    scientists to ``see for themselves'' the results of an experiment or theory.

    The scientist then looks for confirmation of his theory. In other words, he
    looks for positive evidence to support his theory. The evidence must be purely
    empirical and not circumstancial. A theory must be falsifiable. In addition to
    being confirmable, a theory must lay itself out the be able to
    be proven wrong. When a hole is found in the theory, ad hoc explanations that
    aren't consistent with the general theory,exposes it as weak, or even a
    non-science. This is the major difference between theory of relativity and
    Freud's pseudo-scientific psychology. There isn't enough empirical
    evidence in the universe to prove Freud's theories wrong; each piece of
    empirical evidence brought against Freud could be countered by an ad hoc
    ``patch''. Yet there is much empirical data to be brought against the theory
    of relativity (i am not arguing the validity of the theory of relativity, its
    outcome is irrelevant to my point here). In other words, it must be open to
    possible refutation.

    Science must also be tentative, it must be open to change and ``advances.'' A
    scientist must also be open to alter his theory, or ultimately reject it if it
    proves invalid. This implies a certain professionalism that ought be
    maintained. If an experiment cannot be reproduced, or is reproduced
    incorrectly a scientist must be professional enough to step up and say that
    this findings were wrong. On the flip-side it took the Catholic Church a long
    time to admit to the revolution of the heavens!

    The question is in what way (using these five aspects) are we pushing towards
    making memetics a science. Where have there beenmilestones, or set backs
    (read: redefinition of the meme by Dawkins.)

    Best Regards,
    Elmo Recio

    --
    Sociology and Philosophy student at Drexel Univ.
    Philadelphia, PA 19103; USA
    Email: polywog@drexel.edu 
    Homepage: http://polywog.navpoint.com
    

    ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=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 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 07:22:48 BST