Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA04319 (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 22:14:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.70] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:11:52 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F303XvVMcqb5eZ0rT6X00008c74@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2001 22:11:52.0897 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1D46310:01C0992E] 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: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:56:57 +0000
>
>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".
>
OK, I probably goofed. How about "explanatory principles"? "Memetics" should
establish necessity for whatever explanatory principles or "entities" it
brings to the table in addition to previous non-memetic notions? Again, I'm
more of a pluralist so parsimonious monism isn't quite my bag in many cases.
>
> 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).
>
If one of the explanations were to add unnecessary baggage it would be held
suspect.
One could take advantage of complementariness. Jungians such as Anthony
Stevens like to dress Jung's archetypes up in clothes complementary to ev
psych, a move which I'm lukewarm about. It's that latching thing again.
>
> > 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"?
>
That remains to be seen.
>
>What is your point?
>
>
To ask for sobriety...
_________________________________________________________________
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 - 22:16:31 GMT