Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA03334 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:22:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.118] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:20:28 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F206rVc4Iu1B6gVs1tI00008af1@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2001 18:20:28.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E000570:01C0990E] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:59:20 +0000
>
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:26:18PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>Memetics can't explain anything that can't already be explained
>without it. 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 could go on, but I have to go do other things now, and I may as
>well see how people react to that, so I can address issues that arise
>appropriately.
>
>See you later!
>
>
To readdress the point, we could bring parsimony into the argument. The
infamous razor of Ockham goes somehing like: "explanations should not be
multiplied beyond necessity". To add the "memetic" explanation into the mix,
necessity for this move should be established. The pluralist in me tends to
frown on apeals to parsimony sometimes, though. Imaginative ideas have their
place and may lead eventually to fruitful ventures. My main point has been
to invite sobriety and the critical method into "memetics" via its strongest
proponents hopefully.
Lorenz said something in _On Aggression_ about discarding pet hypotheses and
Popper (whether falsifiability is viable or not) seemed very cognizant of
the importance of critical evaluation playing a role in theorizing.
"Memetics" doesn't need uncritical proselytizers.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 18:25:08 GMT