From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The race is on
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:19:38 +0100
Aaron said
>Gatherer did not propose any experiments in his paper. I did propose
>experiments in my paper. In fairness, this does not mean that Gatherer
>cannot propose experiments. It might just reflect the fact that his paper
>devotes far more effort to attacking the work of others than to advancing
>his own line of work.
I thought this was a central component of science. You have been brave
enough to posit a radical new theoretical framework for memetics - the next
stage is for your colleagues to tear it to bits by assessing whether it has
all the characteristics of good theory: explanatory power, predictive power,
parsimony, falsifiability, internal consistency, heuristic provocativeness,
organising power etc). After this demolition tour, hopefully something may
remain, and part of your theory may well be present in memetic theory in
fifty years (if we don't become extinct following an extended period of
subsistence in a toxic cloud of hot arcane drivel). But for the possibility
of this future glory you have to open up your theory to criticism, and be
open to inevitable fact that you will not have got it 100% right fist time.
It's not personal, it's science.
Paul Marsden
Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
University of Sussex
e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>; memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: 17 September 1998 05:52
Subject: Re: The race is on
>At 08:14 PM 9/16/98 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>>I was at the dentist office yesterday and while waiting for my appontment
I
>>began to leaf through an issue of Time from March 6, 1995. The cover
story
>>was on the conflicting theories of how old the universe is. The following
>>paragraph from the article seemed so relevant that I copied it down:
>>
>>"Tenson between theory and observation is part of the normal course of
>>science. It keeps both sides honest, and, at those rare times in history
>>when the two lock horns irreconcilably, it can lead to nothing less than
>>full fledged scientific revolution. Without such clashes, in fact, we'd
>>still believe that the sun orbits Earth and that disease is caused by evil
>>spirits."
>>
>>In the end, I think the winner of the current clash in memetics will be
>>memetics itself, made stronger for the challenges to it from all sides.
>>
>>But for the short term, the camp that prevails will be the one which can
say
>>with authority, "For memes of the type X, in the setting Y, the adoption
>>rate will be Z." and PROVE IT, conclusively and with emperical data from
the
>>real world.
>>
>>My money is on the behaviorists to win this race, given the timespan
>>predicted before the neural camp has the data it needs. But even a
tortoise
>>can beat the hare if the hare is too busy telling everyone how he's going
to
>>win rather than just getting on with it and running the race.
>>
>>-Tim Rhodes
>>
>
>Tim,
>
>You are one of the partisans in this dispute, not a neutral arbitrator. You
>came out strongly in support of Gatherer on the second day of the
>"Gatherer's Behaviorist Stance" thread. Hence, it is not surprising to find
>you attempting to frame the issue in a manner partial to the behaviorists.
>
>This is not a clash between theorists and experimentalists. There are
>theorists and experimentalists in behaviorism, and there are theorists and
>experimentalists in cognitive and neurosciences and various schools of
>psychology. Any allusion to the demand that those discussing neurally
>stored information must first give data on the details of storage (i.e.,
>how the brain works) is also a partisan framing of the issue. The use of
>surveys and other behavior observations to indirectly detect neurally
>stored information has never been in question by those who agree that memes
>are instantiated in brains.
>
>Gatherer did not propose any experiments in his paper. I did propose
>experiments in my paper. In fairness, this does not mean that Gatherer
>cannot propose experiments. It might just reflect the fact that his paper
>devotes far more effort to attacking the work of others than to advancing
>his own line of work.
>
>If you want to run in a race for empirical corroboration of your views,
>that is fine. Indeed, it might be a better use of your efforts than trying
>to present yourself as some kind of race judge.
>
>
>
>--Aaron Lynch
>
>http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
>
>===============================================================
>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 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