Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA26019 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:08:00 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <185.2a1e944.2982f7f2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:03:30 EST Subject: Re: Selfish meme? To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I really was not attempting to discuss particular cases of "fake term papers,
fake dissertations, fake degrees, fake methods, fake experiments, etc. all
the way up to fake sciences (pseudosciences)." I suppose it might remind
people of my past discussions of fake "labs" and fake "institutions," though.
Such things might be more common in the murkier realm of social sciences than
in nuclear physics, where the methods of testing a hypothesis are usually
more clear cut.
I think that young scientists can easily withstand exposure to some
suggestions that we all keep our eyes open. Why would anyone suggest
otherwise? To protect the young people, or to protect the children? Young
people and children reading the news are already exposed to cautionary tales
such as the Enron case, the recent scandal over plagiarized term papers in
physics, industry exerting distorting influences on drug studies, etc. Like
it or not, examining such things is an established part of the overall
process of science anddoes not need to be eradicated from science. It might
not always happen through routine discourse, however -- any more than we
would expect routine discourse with Enron officials to have solved that
problem.
--Aaron Lynch
EARLIER COMMENTS, without context changes:
In a message dated 1/25/2002 7:45:54 AM Central Standard Time, Wade T. Smith
<wade_smith@harvard.edu> writes:
> On 01/25/02 00:48, AaronLynch@aol.com said this-
>
> >When used deceptively or equivocally, words can foster rampant Enronism
in
> >the sciences.
>
> Like 'Enronism' for instance. What, pray tell, is your two cents about
> that coin? All it implies to me, right now, is 'how the mighty may fall',
> and that doesn't make much sense in your sentence.
>
> - Wade
Hi Wade.
So here's my 2 cents. It's just a word. An amusing word that came to mind
amid the growing explanations of what was happening in Enron. The rich system
of fake subsidiaries, fake profits, fake assets, fake loyalties, fake audits,
fake ideologies, fake tax "refunds," etc. And the attempt to make something
big come into existence by getting enough people to believe that it already
existed. In a way, something big did exist, but it was not exactly what it
seemed to be. On the ideological side, we saw a company pushing the gospel of
small government and free markets all while setting up an accounting trick
that may have gotten them hundreds of millions of executive salary paid with
a "refund" on taxes that were not paid in the first place. That, of course,
might be considered socialism masquerading as market capitalism. There was
also that effort to get the government to strong-arm private lenders into
extending more credit, also in stark contrast to the free-market,
small-government image being projected. The hypocrisy, at least, was not
faked.
As for "Enronism," it is a word that may itself come into existence in
standard usage simply from having enough people believe that it is a standard
word. (I imagine it has been coined elsewhere, too.) The Enron case shows
fraud, graft, hypocrisy, and carefully crafted illusions mixing on such a
large scale that it seems to call out for an "ism."
Are there things that might be considered "Enronism" in science? In my
opinion, yes, but not on quite the scale as in business. One can look at
cases of fake term papers, fake dissertations, fake degrees, fake methods,
fake experiments, etc. all the way up to fake sciences (pseudosciences). (My
present purpose is not, however, to make specific allegations. Besides, our
list has a policy against allegations.) Science has ways of addressing such
problems, but it is not a magical process of ignoring problems and having
them thus go away -- any more than it is in business. And there are similar
challenges in all kinds of other human endeavors. Had I subscribed to a
political discussion list, I could probably have dropped a reference to
Enronism in politics.
--Aaron Lynch
It's probably worth noting that the Enronism in business had a major effect
on politics. Without Enron, George W. Bush would probably not have won the
presidential race. (Even the Republican primary is a big question mark.)
Arguably, the executives at Enron were acting as American oligarchs.
The whole thing carries over into science as well, since the president of the
USA has enormous influence on the science and education budgets in this
country. There are real consequences to the lack of effective scrutiny and
real accountability enjoyed for so long by Enron.
===============================================================
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 Jan 25 2002 - 18:47:17 GMT