Re: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh

From: William Benzon (bbenzon@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 14:22:06 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA09372 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:22:37 +0100
    User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513)
    Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:22:06 -0400
    Subject: Re: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh
    From: William Benzon <bbenzon@mindspring.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Message-ID: <B61AF642.530E%bbenzon@mindspring.com>
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AB7@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    > From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    > Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:58:45 +0100
    > To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Subject: RE: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh
    >

    >
    > The idea/hypothesis comes first, the well-defined technical stuff comes
    > later, as people investigate the idea.

    It can go both ways, but memetrics has done neither.

    There's an endnote (pp. 325 ff.) in the 2nd edition of The Selfish Gene
    where Dawkins tracks the spread of the idea of kin selection in the
    scientific literature. He gives this as an example of empirical memetis.
    So there it is, in the canonical heart of memetics. But what memeticists do
    this sort of thing? There's Michael Best and who else? This kind of
    research doesn't require much in the way of hypothesis generating, etc. You
    just follow the memes. Or, some time ago a guy--I forget his name--made a
    brief appearance on this list and talked about work he'd been doing
    compiling a list of sightings of a meme about, I believe, some particular
    kind of blotter acid. That's empirical work & it doesn't require any grand
    hypothesis. But it does require work.

    > But there's no point doing large
    > scale empirical projects if the idea can be refuted by either (a) rational
    > argument and/or (b) already existing evidence to the contrary, so
    > cross-disciplinary discussion is required before rushing into research.

    On the other hand, if you keep your ideas sufficiently fuzzy, they can't be
    either refuted and confirmed and so you can continue the chatter.

    ===============================================================
    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 Oct 24 2000 - 14:24:00 BST