Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:00:58 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
Subject: RE: FW: Memetics in Time magazine
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Aaron:
It was you who said "Richard Dawkins has developed his meme concept as the
philosophical basis for a militant atheism," in your 1998 Zygon paper.
Derek:
Yes, so what? I think that's a bald statement of fact. I'm not insinuating
anything.
Aaron:
Other aspects of that paper and your 1998 JoM-EMIT paper show a particular
concern with religion, which is rather inappropriate especially in the
context of the JoM-EMIT thesis that is not inherently about religion.
Derek:
I don't understand what you mean here. Why is it inappropriate to discuss
religion? Zygon is the Journal of Religion and Science. They generally
expect papers to have some relevance to the subject matter. JoM is more
about the technicalities of memetics. Ditto.
Aaron:
If
you are not religiously motivated, that is great. But I do think, based on
those two papers, that the possibility of overt or subtle religious
influence should be pointed out to you.
Derek:
'overt or subtle religious influence'???? What is that??
Aaron:
Certainly so if it is acceptable
for you to suggest atheistic motivation and zealotry when you say
"acceptance of the meme concept need not necessarily lead to atheism, as
Dawkins and his more zealous followers would maintain" in the Zygon paper.
(As you seem to treat me as one of Dawkins's "more zealous followers," I
would say that you have apparently already made insinuations about my
motives.)
Derek:
I think that you hasve made it quite clear that you are not one of Dawkins'
followers, zealous or otherwise. But out of interest, so you believe that
acceptance of the meme concept leads to atheism? Do you believe that a
memeticist ought to be, or somehow must be, an atheist?
Aaron:
As for the possible conflict of interest with Dawkins, I do not consider it
an ad hominem to point out the possibility. It is considered standard to
point out possible conflicts of interest generated by corporate funding as
well.
Derek:
'corporate funding'? Again I am mystified. What has corporate funding got
to do with this argument? Academic memetics is exclusively funded by the
National Science Foundation in the US and the Royal Society in Britain.
Aaron:
Memetics is not a religion and there is no "Saint Dawkins." Dawkins's works
are not above the processes of critical review by memeticists.
Derek:
and nobody has reviewed them more critically than me. But I don't make
insinuations about his motives.
Aaron:
He has
failed to mention either the existence of technical/quantitative memetics
work or JoM-EMIT in both his latest book and his latest article. For this,
his article and book sustain my criticism.
Derek:
But Dawkins does mention your book. It's on page ix of the Foreword. He is
even quite complementary. Why can't you just accept his small endorsement
and be grateful?
===============================================================
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