Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA06120 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:43:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A2A@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Purported mystical "knowledge" Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:41:15 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Imho, that 'broad readership base' includes readers who wish to
avoid
>pedantic intellectual smokescreens!
In other words people who'd rather not question, not analyse, not think,
just feel and believe in the misguided notion that to do so offers
"superior" "knowledge".
Defining concepts is neither pedantic nor a smokescreen. It's absolutely
essential so that a real debate on a subject can occur- so that all
interested parties know what is meant when a particular term is used. I
hate jargon as much as the next person, but that's a different debate, we're
talking here about commonly used terms, like 'experience' and 'belief'.
Providing evidence for arguments is also not a matter of pedantry. It can
become that way, if evidence is fragmentary or disputed, but the argument
here is about the basic presence (or absence) of evidence.
Richard's book is nice and clear on the first point- especially in defining
the meme, going through a range of different definitions and then picking
the one he thinks is most appropriate. it is far less clear in the area of
evidence, making lots of unsubstantiated statements (note I'm not saying the
statements are right or wrong, only that they are not backed up with
evidence). (I haven't got the book to hand, so if you want examples, you'll
have to wait till tomorrow).
Now that doesn't automatically invalidate the book's arguments or appeal,
but it makes it less appealing and more difficult for those of us who have
experienced or work in academia to accept. We are used to books that
constantly qualify and substantiate arguments in relation to evidence (or at
least that's what they're supposed to do).
Vincent
> ---
> Austin
> Who likes to have his house maid backwards, so he can watch the TV.
>
> www.docking.org.uk
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 Sep 19 2000 - 14:45:29 BST