Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA03784 (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 13:05:57 +0100 From: Nick Rose <Nicholas.Rose@uwe.ac.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Memetics a pseudoacience? Message-ID: <SIMEON.10007251336.C@muahost.uwe.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:03:36 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.5 Build (47-uwe) X-Authentication: IMSP Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Elmo Recio wrote:
> 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.
My tuppence worth :)
In my review of Sue Blackmore's book on amazon (uk) I call
memetics a great idea, but a poor theory. However, I do not
think memetics necessarily qualifies as a pseudoscience. As
an explanation I believe that Memetics stands as a
scientific one. The 'natural laws' that are established
are the 'law' of evolution through natural selection.
Culture seems to have the properties that Derek refers to;
the qualities which make it a replicator in an evolutionary
algorythmn. The question is whether there is scientific
evidence to support this explanation.
As with any evolutionary process predictions are
difficult. Because of random variation, and the complexity
of the selective environment; simple predictions about the
future forms that culture will evolve are nigh on
impossible. However, this lack of predictive power does not
in itself make memetics a pseudoscience any more than the
theory of biological evolution.
Of course, the current failure to make scientifically
testable predictions does mean that empirical tests of the
theory and confirmational findings are hard to generate.
And this does make it difficult to convince reasonable
sceptics that memetics is a scientifically valid idea.
However, it is possible to falsify the detail of the
theory: claims that imitation is the cornerstone of
cultural evolution may be undermined by examples from
animal imitation studies (perhaps); the claim that memes
drove human evolution towards developing a big brain might
be undermined by fossil record, or findings that a big
brain provides some other function not associated with the
transmission or retention of culture; etc. In addition,
computer or web-based simulations of memetic processes
might provide something of the evidence we would like to
see support our 'good idea'.
One of the most frustrating things about memetics is the
paucity of hard testable predictions about the way that
memes vary, are transmitted, and are selected. By focussing
on the process itself rather than the products of culture,
it should be possible to make predictions and then test
them (as I suggest above). Conversely, endless
illustrations of 'the memetic process at work' whether it
be the rise of the Nazi's or the spread of Pokemon, do
little to convince the scientifically minded because they
are simply unfalsifyable.
In addition to not waiting for neurology to 'catch up' or
hoping that consciousness or 'free will' will solve
our problems understanding selection or variation. Memetics
needs people who are prepared to 'stick their necks out' and
make strong falsifyable claims that can be tested.
Whilst there are meme theorists with the courage to make
strong claims, and the good humour to accept the inevitable
criticism, and the humility to accept that their ideas
could be wrong; then memetics will at least have the
intellectual honesty of a science - even if the memetics
hypothesis is one day proved to be entirely wrong. The
theorists who possess the qualities I have listed
above I think would have good claim to the tentativeness
you describe as a vital feature of a scientific theory.
Tentativeness may not be a guide as to whether a theory is
good or bad, scientific or not; but I personally always use
it as a guide to determine whether I am talking to a
scientist or a pseudo-scientist.
Regards,
Nick
----------------------------------------
Nick Rose
Email: Nicholas.Rose@uwe.ac.uk
"University of the West of England"
===============================================================
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 - 13:06:49 BST