Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA13340 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:59:30 GMT Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410D1@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:54:36 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Derek:
>If you can show that a novel cultural variant has a selective
>advantage or disadvantage which does not affect the constitution of the
gene
>pool of that population, then you have a good case.
Wade:
Ah, but wouldn't evolution itself battle, and battle hard, against any
such variant?
Derek:
In what way? The fact that the cultural variant has some kind of selective
impact is a demonstration of (cultural) evolution in this case. If you can
demonstrate that biological genetic evolution is not a necessary correlate
of such cultural evolution then you have evidence for an independent
cultural replicator.
Wade:
Not that I don't like retrospection, but, in most instances,
retrospection is a pseudoscience, akin to astrology, where the bias of
the 'experimentor' is the desired result of the analysis.
Derek:
Hmmm.... I'd see it as just verificationism. The 'bias' is our theory and
the 'desired result' is verificational data. That's not such bad science,
providing you can think of some falsificatory analyses to run in parallel.
Wade:
I ask the same thing of 'scientific' astrologers (who are also akin to
skeptical believers, in that impossibly portmanteau way of the flagrantly
newage)- please, please, begin by gathering data, not by applying your
preconceptions and wishes upon a derived set of numbers. It's not the
ability to find patterns, but the theory of pattern which is important in
science, but, retrospection is all they know.
Derek:
I don't follow. Pattern recognition in cleaned data sets is a fundamental
basis of many sciences. That's why we have unsupervised datamining
techniques etc. You will end up throwing out most babies with the bath
water if you apply your stance to most science.
===============================================================
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 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 15:01:17 GMT