Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA00726 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:21:45 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A42@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: memetics and knowledge Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:19:08 +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
I wrote:
>
> Once again, you claim we're using experience in the same sense whilst at
> the
> same time refusing to define it, which increasingly makes me think we're
> using the term in different ways.
>
You replied:
>That's irrational. I'm refusing to play along with your
diversionary
>tactics. There is no logic in concluding from my refusal to
provide
>a definition, that there is a difference in our use of
"experience".
>And, you claimed to have reason to believe there was such a
difference
>previously, though you've never been willing to offer it. Are you
reduced
>to claiming that my refusal to play constitutes such a reason
because
>you don't have any real reason? Because that's what it looks like.
There's nothing irrational or diversionary in being skeptical about
someone's persistent refusal to define a key term in their argument. How
can you or I know whether we agree or not over 'experience', without
defining it? The onus is on you, because you are claiming something about
the primacy of experience over other kinds of knowledge acquisition. You
are openly refusing to do this, and this is the irrational act- not my
question. If you don't like difficult questions then don't make statements
you're not prepared to have questioned.
If you want me to explain my reason for the question, to avoid repeating
myself I refer you back to a previous post I made on the 18th September,
where I thought I expressed myself quite clearly. Checking the subsequent
mails, you don't seem to have addressed that point, but there has been a
barrage of comments over the last few days, so I'll give you another chance
to look at it now.
>I'm very willing to try to explain. I'd have thought that was
obvious
>by now. What I object to, is people pretending that they
understand what
>they're rejecting, when they quite plainly do not, and are making
that
>decision on the presence of certain buzzwords, and
guilt-by-association.
My statement remains- explain it to me in a rational manner, with key terms
clearly defined, and arguments substantiated and this thread will come to an
end, and we can then get back to talking about memes. In this post you're
explicitly refusing to do that, whilst again condemning my rejection of your
claims as prejudice/ignorance/irrationality. But without definition and
evidence, what rational choice do I have but to reject your claims?
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 13:23:12 BST