Subject: Re: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:25:40 -0400
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>But how does that reflect on non-human memetics? Surely "tainted" memes
>are just as real as "pure" ones?
Sorry- t'weren't my intention to even drag what, where, and why 'pure'
memes are around at all- I was attempting to make the point that, as
memetics is a fledgling discipline, working its way to a science, maybe,
that it is a _very bad thing_ to use a proven fraudulent study as part of
the evidence and methodology. Being laughed out of the arena is not the
way to win the battle.
The macaque _study_, and all of the subsequent conclusions, is tainted by
fraud. I don't think the bird song studies are, from what I know of them.
In my view, it is best memetics divests itself of anything even hinting
of fraud or chicanery, in the interest of preservation.
- Wade
===============================================================
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