Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA26141 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:34:09 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C78@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:33:30 -0000 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
>> The problem for memetics, perhaps, is that such things may
be
> >> explainable simply in terms of individual and social psychology, with
> no
> >> need for memes at all.
>
<Beep! False dichotomy. This really needs sorting out. Memetics
and
> psychology are different explanations, but they are NOT mutually
> exclusive! Psychology is one (large) sector of the environment in which
> memes survive or not as the case may be.>
>
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, and I certainly don't
think that per se, my point was merely some processes of shared behaviour
between individuals has already been reasonably well explained by
established models, and I guess I was just after a re-affirmation of what
memetics adds that is new and insightful by way of offering an explanation
of the kinds of things being discussed at the moment (movie catch-phrases).
I may simply need to go back and re-read the basic memetics texts again,
it's just that after the research seminar the other day (where this point
was raised by a few people), and after reading Cavalli-Sforza's chapter on
cultural evolution (in which he used ideas like transmission and imitation,
but not memes), I've been struck again by this question of what's genuinely
new about the theory of memetics?
<Memetics can't explain anything that can't already be explained
> without it. >
>
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow this sentence. Are you saying that
there are things that other theories have failed to explain things that only
memetics can explain? (I'm not disputing that, necessarily, just trying to
understand what you mean).
< What it can do is give us a handle on these things at a
> higher level of abstraction, another angle. In the most objective terms,
> neither the longevity of items of information (genes and memes) nor the
> well-being of any individual or species or ecosystem really matters.
> But we find it useful, for different purposes, to think and act as if
> one of these things did matter, which particular thing depending on what
> we're wanting to achieve at the time.>
>
I see what you're saying here, but isn't there the risk of
over-egging the pudding? If an existing theory offers a relatively robust
explanation of a social or psychological process, then why complicate
matters- except to try and address gaps in existing theories. In order to
do that, one needs to identify first what those gaps are, and then explain
why memetics can answer those questions, how, and eventually offer some
empirical evidence to demonstrate this.
Don't get me wrong, I've defended memetics' theorising on this list,
but at some point, the bottom line will be original evidence that doesn't
stem from previous research conducted under different theories that were
quite satisfactory in their own terms.
As with you, I have other things to do, so I won't go on (I feel old
discussions brewing as well).
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 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 14:36:16 GMT