Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA10771 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:25:32 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D29@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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:21:55 +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
> >> But isn't that the point? You can't test the validity of values
> > >with a value-laden methdology, that's why you need science.
>
<No, you need science to discover facts.>
And with those facts, you can (try to) dispell incorrectly based
values.
<In terms of sheer numbers of racists, what proportion do you think
would
> be swayed either way by genetic arguments? Don't make the mistake of
> thinking everyone is like you, a thorough-going rationalist. I'd bet the
> vast majority of racists are happy to assume the "others" to be inferior,
> without caring much about any fact or pseudo-fact. These people have
> psychological problems that no amount of rationalisation will affect.
> It's just like any other ingrained prejudice.>
>
Is it any better to try and change racists minds by irrational
means? I didn't say it would necessarily work, but that's the burden of us
all.
<Excuse me, I wrote the foregoing before reading this sentence. But
it
> supports my point. Less credibility among whom? If they're racists,
> they're unlikely to care. If they're not racists, such views wouldn't
> have much credibility for them anyway.>
>
Social credibility- in other words what, collectively as a society,
we regard as credible viewpoints around which to organise ourselves. A bit
like Rousseau's general will.
> >> Hence whatever's left in terms of our values towards issues of
> >> race should become dominant.
>
<Wouldn't it be nice...!>
>> At one level this is idealism, at another its
>> the political reality where several countries have racial abuse
as civil
>> rights abuses and thus crimes. People are still racist, but as a
society we
>> collectively acknowledge such views as illegitimate.
<Umm, can you tell me, how exactly science helped in achieving
this?>
(paeleo-) Archaeology and genetics as well as linguistic analyses
indicate the close relationship in all sorts of ways between peoples around
the world, and have for some time now played a part in changing political
attitudes towards questions of race. Broader scientific discoveries before
these helped begin to shape people's minds towards a more rational
consideration of many values, including those you cite-
<I don't know where to start. Equality, fraternity, liberty,
justice...>
Justice aside, which I think may have much older roots, these you
mention are relatively new values to have emerged in Enlightenment Europe,
and there are many peoples around the world still living in systems that
don't acknowledge such values. Is that a coincidence of scientific methods
and political and personal liberalism occuring in the same countries?
(that's to say there's a simple causal relationship, only that they are
clearly related).
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 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 11:28:13 BST