Re: The Demise of a Meme

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2001 - 14:18:37 BST

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA02257 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:18 +0100
    Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:18:37 +0100
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    Message-ID: <20010329141837.A547@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <20010329110130.B535@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC31511.ED22A7C2@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010329125905.A1365@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC32FB1.C13D8990@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <3AC32FB1.C13D8990@bioinf.man.ac.uk>; from Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:50:57PM +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:50:57PM +0100, Chris Taylor wrote:
    > Psychology is now where biology was 100 years ago. Biology now is where
    > physics was 100 years ago.

    These are great tabloid headlines, but (like tabloid headlines) they're
    not going to convince anyone who is not already inclined to believe it.
    In fact, I'd say, strictly speaking, these statements are meaningless,
    because these disciplines are not directly comparable.

    > Psychology says f.a. about mechanisms,

    Modern cognitive psychology has a great deal to say about mechanisms
    -- in fact, that's about all it says. Have you ever looked into it?
    Let me guess...

    > my
    > memetics (most biologists wouldn't touch this with a barge pole so I can
    > hardly have copied it - why do you always have to slag people off
    > without having a clue whether your flippant assertions contain even a
    > semblance of truth)

    I was talking about your attitude to psychology, not memetics. It's just
    so typical of people who think their own discipline is more hard-headed
    to slag off psychology and the other social sciences from a position
    of complete ignorance. As my first degree was in psychology, and I
    subsequently worked in other science departments, I've come across this
    so often as to be able to recognise it at a glance.

    By the way, none of these other departments offered a better education in
    experimental design and statistics -- at the absolute heart of scientific
    method -- than I got as an undergrad psychologist.

    > has mechanisms (well I'm getting there anyway).

    If you're actually getting there, not just dreaming of doing so, you
    should have something to share with us, shouldn't you?

    -- 
    Robin Faichney
    Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
    (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
    

    =============================================================== 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 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 15:09:08 BST