Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA05546 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D1D@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:45:17 +0100 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
<Not really, no. Pragmatism is infinitely superior to dogmatism of
> whatever colour.>
>
I'm not so much proposing dogmatism, as a recognition of the
problems of not recognising the importance of value judgements, as I said-
> >> That is if you want to remain a social being, engaging in activities
> with
> >> other humans, you have to acknowledge the importance of value judgement
> and
> >> develop some effective system of arbitration between competing
> viewpoints.
>
<Not at this level of generalisation. Specifics are required. This
is just
> waffle.>
>
What I mean is you must have some way to test different value
judgements against each other. Only science, of the different approaches we
have to this kind of dilemma, offers the hope of a testing process which may
be value free (note the qualifications here).
>> Otherwise you end up either in a fence-sitting position refusing
to judge
> >> anything, and thus unable to act, or you must end up with a cultural
> >> relativism where anything goes, and everything is of equal merit-
> whether
> >> that be meditation or mass human sacrifice.
>
<Maybe you could explain how such laudable values (or any others)
can be
> derived from science.>
>
I think the emphasis should be the other way round- why should
anyone derive their values from any belief system which eschews empirical
testing? Science is explicitly about this, hence its capacity to, at least
potentially, resolve disputes. If it's being done correctly (and there's no
reason to assume that it is being done correctly on every occasion) then
hypotheses are rejected or refined subject to empirical data. Faiths are
unswerving in their dogmaticism and refusal to acknowledge empirical
evidence that counters their claims.
> >> I'm on the side of the fence with Wade, where the grass may not be as
> green,
> >> but at least it's real.
>
<"Reality" is one of the slippiest concepts in regular use. Your
use of
> it here is entirely meaningless.>
>
Well I used the word real, not reality, and the fact you can't see
meaning in its usage here, is strong evidence of what I'm talking about. In
the world of science, one can test to see if the grass is there or not, in
the world of faith testing is out of the window- you either believe in its
presence or you don't.
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 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 10:56:50 BST