Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA06775 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:06:42 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E09@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:02:54 +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
<Nonetheless, the process of logic used is no different than
> that used by science.>
>
I can't help thinking that if that were true, then religions would
have rejected dogma a long time ago, but they essentially haven't. But
since I'm no expert on logical processes (and, arguably not an exponent of
them either :-)), I won't push this one.
<Hey, did I ever claim that they were equal in achievements of
> understanding the reality? I was pointing out the similarities in their
> structures, and specificaly their utmost importance for our mechanisms
> of perception.>
>
Hmm.... well OK. I'll let that one go.
< Neither was I equating science with religion (actually I
> seem to rememeber clearly stating that I am not a cultural relativist
> and that I value some viewpoints of reality far more then other)>
>
Yes but to critique someone's claims of the equivalence of science
and religion (in some regards) is not to accuse them of cultural relativism,
and certainly that's not what I'm suggesting. It's to accuse them of
underplaying the fundamental differences between scienctific and religious
modes of thinking. As cultural institutions, as I said, I think indeed
there are clear parallels, but your comments are about processes of
thinking, and deep structures, which IMHO science and religion clearly
diverge.
<I *was* equating the memeplex of religion with that of the science,
> because the similarities in behaviour exhibited by hosts are clearly
> visible, and there seems to be great difficulty in having both of these
> memeplexes active in the same host at the same time, implying the
> relationship between the two, if in nothing else, then "living space".>
>
Well, this is reasonable (assuming you buy the memes in mind idea,
of course). Actually even in the 'memes in artefacts' framework this has
some merit. Both science and religion have institutions, uniforms, rituals
etc. etc. So in that sense, yeah absolutely. Having said that, I suppose
it kind of goes without saying that I'm an example of someone who can't
"host" science and religion at the same time (of course I'd put it as
having a natural immunity against religion :-)).
<So, as you said above, if science is a memeplex (or exhibits the
> behaviour of the same), and we already agree that religion is, you can
> see why I debate about the similarities of their structures.>
>
Yes- depending upon what kinds of structures we're talking about.
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 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 12:10:12 BST