From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@msn.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Reductionism in Memetics
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:31:37 -0000
>Just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a list of the empirical studies
>in this regard which support -- rather than just utilize -- the hypothesis
>that "complex wholes _must_ be explained in terms of their parts"?
Touché! Nice rhetorical question - They cannot, the organising principles of
science method are of course metaphysical and not falsifiable or 'support'
the scientific method themselves (there, I've said it). But what they
produce are! Indeed any explanation of science in terms of science would be
exactly the sort on circular non-reductionist reasoning that I am say is
mere chimera. That is the whole point, the consequence of adopting a
scientific framework is that the results are falsifiable (BTW this is a
selectionist argument). Generate and Test
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: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: 21 January 1999 17:46
Subject: Re: Reductionism in Memetics
>Paul Marsden wrote:
>
>>Before we consign reductionism to the rest of scientific method we are
>>having such fun jettisoning in this post-modern orgy, just a couple of
>>thoughts from a reductionist.
>>
>[...]
>>
>>Methodological or explanatory reductionism is the scientific method -
>>complex wholes must be explain in terms of their parts; now that does not
>>imply a one:one relationship between levels, or that the properties of a
>>complex whole are simply the sum of the properties of the parts (that
would
>>be just as idiotic as simply claiming emergent levels by shifting the
>stance
>>to one from a cloud in the sky) simply that explanation involves
explaining
>>emergence not positing it. Let's have ,as Rob Clewley, suggests emergence
>>without magic.
>
>Just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a list of the empirical studies
>in this regard which support -- rather than just utilize -- the hypothesis
>that "complex wholes _must_ be explained in terms of their parts"?
>
>-Tim Rhodes
>
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>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