From: <edryce@juno.com>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:46:36 -0700
Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
A question for Wade: What would you accept as "proof"?
Edryce
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:21:53 -0400 "Wade T.Smith"
<wade_smith@harvard.edu> writes:
>On 09/18/99 10:51 the inimitable MemeLab@aol.com made this comment =8B
>
>>So I don't think that it is necessary to provide any proof for NLP,
>to mak=
>e
>>the dynamics that I am suggesting any more plausible.
>>
>>-Jake
>
>It is precisely this sort of casualness that props up the
>psuedosciences
>and that their proponents take mighty advantage of. There is no
>reason,
>if the authors you cited had no reference to this particular
>pseudoscience in the source you cite (Philosophy in the Flesh) for you
>to
>drag it into the field of view, unless, IMHO, you were in some way a
>proponent of this and wanted to lend it some quick and dirty
>legitimacy.
>
>And it is for this reason that I feel it is quite necessary to provide
>
>proof. Quite necessary indeed.
>
>- 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
===============================================================
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