Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA03978 (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 19:59:25 GMT Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:56:57 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <20010217185657.A1975@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <F206rVc4Iu1B6gVs1tI00008af1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <F206rVc4Iu1B6gVs1tI00008af1@hotmail.com>; from ecphoric@hotmail.com on Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:20:28PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:20:28PM -0500, Scott Chase wrote:
> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
> >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.
> >
> 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".
That should be "entities", rather than "explanations". Other things being
equal, the explanation that involves fewer entities should be preferred.
But that only applies where explanations are competing. Where they are
complementary, there is generally no need to choose between them (though
for any particular purpose, one may be preferable).
> 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.
Do you think I'm an "uncritical proselytizer"? What is your point?
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 - 20:01:37 GMT